Age does not matter

As the old and overly utilized cliché goes; “Age does not matter.” This statement would pertain not merely to the daily facets of everyday living but it would also be an appropriate statement for laws abhorring discrimination on the basis of age. Age has been one of the primordial considerations when it comes to employment discrimination cases. Even the Employment Act which was ordained into law in 1967 provides the ample protection afforded to individuals subjected to age discrimination. Not only would this cover employees but even those applying for a prospective position as well. The code explicitly provides that it shall be unlawful to discriminate against any person on the sole account of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment. This consequently includes: hiring, firing, promotion, lay-off, compensation, training, benefits, and job assignments. Congruently, even supplementary acts like retaliating against an individual for conveying an opposition against employment practices that revolves on an age discrimination issue, like filing a complaint, participating in any investigation to that effect, testifying, or proceeding with litigation are also prohibited under the law.

Job advertisement can also be construed as a primary source of discrimination on account of age. Age limits explicitly included on job notices can only be considered as valid if it can be vividly proven that it is an occupational qualification done in good faith, and that said requirement is reasonably necessary in the businesses ordinary course. If these two conditions have not been complied with, then it is repugnant to existing legislations which prohibit age preferences or specifications included on advertisements and job notices.

A prerogative is given to the employer to inquire into an applicant’s age or date of birth. But despite this right, if said query would operate to deter older yet, otherwise qualified workers from venturing into said work then discrimination on the basis of age is already prevalent.

Governing is the rule that workers performing the same task without regard to their age must be given the same privileges and benefits without any favour whatsoever. Denial of benefits to older employees is proscribed if the older employee can perform the same task, with the same cost of benefits afforded to younger employees. In simpler terms, in ceteris paribus, when everything is held constant, then no undue privileges must be given on account of age of the industry’s employees.

Our Los Angeles Accident Attorneys specialize in all fields of personal injury, business law, social security, and employment cases

Rainier used to work in a publishing company as a writer and eventually became an associate editor. He dealt in writing instructional materials for secondary and tertiary students. His passion in writing inspired him to read a lot and subsequently enabled him to gain more knowledge and skills.

Advertisements

One Response

  1. ii was laid off eldest of team was supervisor others more appropriate to lay off worked hotel said bad economy yet we were very busy 100 prior week no notice .

    also a 2nd dept . eldest 11 years senior of 20 others forced to lay off saod ut backs . release letter had no time frame or consult a lawyer clause . also not given a list of others laid off to compare We need help please

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: