Economists Say Age Discrimination in Hiring Forces Cuts in Social Security

The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco issued an “Economic Letter” this week noting that “current policies” in place to combat age discrimination in hiring may not work, which is increasing the burden on U.S. Social Security and forcing policy-makers to find ways to limit benefits.

The authors, economists David Neumark and Ian Burn, from the University of California and Patrick Button of Tulane University, also say  research shows that age discrimination most adversely affects women who “end up quite poor” at the end of their lives.

The authors say older workers are being encouraged to work longer but can’t find jobs due to age discrimination.

“Population aging and the consequent increased financial burden on the U.S. Social Security system is driving new proposals for program reform. One major reform goal is to create stronger incentives for older individuals to stay in the workforce longer.  However, hiring discrimination against older workers creates demand-side barriers that limit the effectiveness of these supply side reforms,”  state the authors.

The authors say age discrimination in hiring is creating pressure on policy makers to reduce the age for Social Security benefits and to cut benefits. Continue reading “Economists Say Age Discrimination in Hiring Forces Cuts in Social Security”

The EEOC Veered Sharply Away from Litigation in 2016

In 2016, the EEOC filed 34% fewer lawsuits than it filed in 2015, and there were drastic declines in some areas, notably an 85.7% decline in age discrimination lawsuits.

This is not good news for victims of discrimination in employment. Without the gravity and resources of the EEOC behind them, many individual discrimination victims are puny “Davids” facing international corporate “Goliaths.”

It appears the steep litigation decline – from 174 lawsuits in 2015 to 114 in 2016 –  is the result of the EEOC’s new emphasis on resolving individual complaints through voluntary mediation. However, mediation is a far better deal for employers than workers. For employers, mediation is a form of free dispute resolution that gets the EEOC off their back and eliminates the risk of massive damages and fees in a jury trial. For workers, mediation generally results in a modest financial settlement at best.

Many workers, especially those without counsel, do not fully understand their rights and the employer’s potential liability, or they cannot realistically fight for their rights because they have no money to wage a protracted court battle.

Mediation is a far better deal for discriminatory employers than it is for discrimination victims.

Here are the types and number of lawsuits filed by the EEOC in 2016 compared to 2015 and the percentage increase/decrease.

  • Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; Two lawsuits in 2016, compared to 14 in 2015 (a decrease of 85.7%).
  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act  of 1964 (race, sex, religion, color and national origin): 46 lawsuits in 2016 compared to 83 in 2015 (a decrease of 44.5%).
  • Americans with Disability Act: 36 lawsuits in 2016 compared to 53 in 2015 (a decrease of 32%).
  • Equal Pay Act: Five lawsuits in 2016 compared to 7 in 2015 (a decrease of 28%).
  • Genetic Information Non-Discrimination  Act  Two lawsuits in 2016 compared to one in 2015 (an increase of 50%).

Continue reading “The EEOC Veered Sharply Away from Litigation in 2016”

Bloomberg Articles on Age Discrimination in Employment

I am excited to be quoted in a series of excellent articles addressing the problem of age discrimination in employment published today by Bloomberg’s Daily Labor Report.

The main article, by Patrick Dorrian, J.D., is Talkin’ ‘Bout All Generations: Workplace Age Diversity Lacking. It touches upon themes that I have explored  in my book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace,  and in this blog and my other blog devoted exclusively to age discrimination. These themes include actions by the Obama administration and Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez that have encouraged age discrimination in hiring, both in the federal government (our nations largest employer) and nationwide.

A second article, Many Wrinkles in Age Diversity, addresses how age discrimination uniquely and negatively effects women both when they are in the workplace and later, when they are living in poverty or near poverty on Social Security.

It is encouraging to see a national media outlook address these real problems that have affected millions of older Americans for years – problems that have been unaddressed even by supposed advocates for this population group.

Ultimately, nothing will or can change until Americans become aware of the prevalence and consequences of irrational and harmful age discrimination in employment which, by the way, they subsidize through their tax dollars in higher social welfare costs.

Thumbs up to Bloomberg!

Appeals Court Rules Job Applicants Can’t Sue for Systemic Age Discrimination

A federal appeals court has ruled that job applicants cannot sue an employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for promulgating policies and practices that discriminate in hiring on the basis of age.

The ruling is a major setback for victims of age discrimination in hiring, which for years has been widespread, overt and unaddressed.

The full 11th Circuit of Appeals in Atlanta, in a ruling dated Oct. 5, ruled the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 “makes it clear that an applicant for employment cannot sue an employer for disparate impact because the applicant has no “status as an employee.’” The ruling overturns an earlier 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel holding that the ADEA permits older job applicants to sue for age discrimination in hiring. The 11th circuit has jurisdiction over cases in Alabama, Florida and Georgia.

The ruling graphically illustrates the lack of protection afforded to older workers compared to victims of other types of employment discrimination. Job applicants are permitted to file so-called disparate impact lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, color and national origin.

The ruling came in the case of Richard M. Villarreal who, beginning at age 49, applied seven times over the Internet for a position as a territory manager at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.   He was never hired and he was never told why his applications were rejected.

The 11th Circuit’s ruling deprives older job applicants of a way to counter modern-day age discrimination in hiring, including the use of covert Internet screening tools.

After being contacted by a whistle blower, a  law firm told Villarreal that Reynolds had contracted with two recruiting firms to develop internet screening tools to target young job applicants for hire and screen out applicant having eight to ten years of experience.

Villarreal filed suit in 2010 against Reynolds and a staffing firm, Pinstripe, Inc., alleging disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination.

The disparate treatment theory requires the plaintiff to prove the employer engaged in intentional age discrimination whereas the disparate impact theory argues the employer adopted a seemingly neutral policy or practice that had a disproportionate and adverse impact upon older job applicants. The plaintiff is not required to show intentional discrimination under the disparate impact theory.

Villarreal’s case now hangs by a thin thread.

The appeal’s court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Villarreal’s disparate treatment claim because it was filed after the statute of limitations expired. The Court agreed that Villarreal failed to exercise “diligence’ because he did not ask Reynolds why he was not hired in 2007. The appeals court remanded the case back to the lower court so Villarreal could pursue a  “continuing-violation” theory that would render his 2007 claim timely.

The appeals court said the ADEA does not permit job applicants to use the so-called disparate impact theory, which challenges company-wide employment policies and practices that adversely affect older job applicants. The court refused to defer to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s argument that the ADEA does permit disparate impact lawsuits “because we do not defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute when the text is clear.”

The ruling eliminates any means of redress for thousands of older job applicants who applied for positions at Reynolds only to have their applications diverted into a digital trash can sight unseen.

The case is Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 15-10602,(11th Cir.).

Taxpayers Subsidize Age Discrimination by Feds

It is ironic that our nation’s largest employer, the U.S. government, is one of the worst offenders with respect to age discrimination in hiring.

President Barack Obama in 2010 unilaterally signed an executive order that allows federal agencies to by-pass older workers, ignore merit and qualifications, and to hire “recent graduates” and “entry-level jobseekers” for permanent federal jobs. Since the vast majority of recent graduates and entry-lvel job seekers are under the age of 40, Obama’s order has an obvious discriminatory impact on older workers. Yet, there was no public outcry when Obama signed this order – not from the AARP or the American Civil Liberties Union.

Obama couched his action in terms of increasing diversity in federal hiring but he offered no evidence that it was necessary to resort to age discrimination, which is illegal under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Obama’s order operates as an exemption to the ADEA. Furthermore, Obama’s order discriminates against older African Americans and Hispanics, as well as older whites.

Not surprisingly, older applicants face a mountain of discrimination when applying for lucrative federal positions.

James W. Moeller, then 57, filed a federal age discrimination lawsuit last year after he applied for several positions an attorney at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FEC) in Washington, DC. He was never  granted an interview despite the fact that he is a Harvard Law School graduate with 30 years of federal energy regulatory experience.  Moeller has represented clients before the FEC, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Maryland Public Service Commission. He is a leading scholar on federal energy regulatory law, having published numerous scholarly articles on the topic.

Meanwhile, the FEC granted interviews to younger, less qualified applicants, who were subsequently hired.

How come a guy like Moeller who objectively has superb qualifications could not even get an interview with the FEC? Could it be … uh … age discrimination?

Moeller’s  lawsuit states the FEC “claims that it cannot discriminate on the basis of age because it has no knowledge of the ages of its job applicants. This claim is based on the fact that job applicants generally do not include their dates of birth on their resumes.”  Moeller argues – and basic common sense dictates – that employers can infer the age of a job applicant based upon the applicant’s job history.

It is arguably a much greater failing for the federal government to discriminate against older workers because  we are shareholders in the enterprise through our tax dollars. In addition, discrimination by the federal government sends a signal to the private sector that age discrimination is acceptable and will be tolerated.

In my book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, I explore other ways in which all three branches of the federal government have overlooked, abetted and trivialized age discrimination in employment. I also show how the ADEA provides far less protection for older workers than is provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to workers on the basis of race, sex, national origin, color and religion.

*See Moeller v. Bay, Case No, 1:15-cv-00724 (2015) U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

EEOC Pitches Lack of Diversity in the Tech Industry as an “Innovation Opportunity”

*NOTE:  The EEOC issued a report at its meeting (discussed below) that completely ignored age discrimination except for a footnote stating that more research on age discrimination is needed. According to the report,  compared to overall private industry, the high tech sector employed a larger share of whites (63.5 percent to 68.5 percent), Asian Americans (5.8 percent to 14 percent) and men (52 percent to 64 percent), and a smaller share of African Americans (14.4 percent to 7.4 percent), Hispanics (13.9 percent to 8 percent), and women (48 percent to 36 percent). WHAT ABOUT AGE? Ed.

After more tGoogle_Mountain_View_campus_dinosaur_skeleton_'Stan'han a decade of ignoring rampant and blatant age discrimination in the tech industry (and everywhere else), the issue appears has surfaced on the EEOC’s radar screen. But it is not  seen as an overly-ripe target for enforcement of older workers civil rights. Rather, it is couched as an “innovation opportunity.”

The EEOC has announced it will hold a meeting in Washington, DC, on Wednesday entitled, “Innovation Opportunity: Examining Strategies to Promote Diverse and Inclusive Workplaces in the Tech Industry.”

While it might be hoped the EEOC would actually enforce the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Agency deserves credit for acknowledging that age is a diversity issue, which is something that Silicon Valley  stubbornly refuses to acknowledge. Also, the EEOC deserves major kudos given that the Obama administration  for the past eight years, has treated older workers  like an obstacle to diversity and not a group that deserves equal rights under the law.

One of the invited panelists for Wednesday’s meeting is an attorney from the AARP Foundation, which is an organization that the EEOC apparently entrusts to be polite about the EEOC’s regulatory lapses during the past decade. The AARP Foundation almost has to be polite because it’s mothership is the the monolithic AARP, which also has done little to advocate for older workers by combating age discrimination. Moreover, the AARP is reaping billions  from the sale of Medigap health insurance after having lobbied to keep Medigap reforms out of Obamacare. The AARP receives  an estimated 4.95 percent of every dollar that seniors spend on its Medigap plans. These fees are reportedly double the income the AARP receives from “membership:” dues.  A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that Medigap reforms blocked by the AARP would have saved the average senior as much as $415 in premiums per year.

It is perhaps not surprising that my name does not appear on the EEOC’s guest list.

My groundbreaking 2014 book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, criticizes the systemic inequality of older workers in American society, especially in Silicon Valley. I note that the ADEA was weak to begin with and  then was further eviscerated by the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Congress has done nothing to insure equal rights for older workers. I also  criticize the EEOC  for failing to combat an massive increase in age discrimination complaints since 1998 and I point out that President Barack Obama signed a devastating executive order in 2010 that actually legalizes age discrimination in federal hiring.

I may be alone in the U.S. in reporting that the EEOC itself stands accused of engaging in systemic age discrimination in hiring

Earlier this year I  reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce  filed a friend-of-the-court brief in an age discrimination case in which it defended employers who practice age discrimination in hiring by noting that the EEOC does the very same thing.  The Chamber cited the EEOC Attorney Honor Program, which employs in “permanent” positions “third-year law student[s], “full-time graduate law students[s],” and “Judicial Law Clerk[s] whose clerkship must be [their] first significant legal employment following [their] graduation.”  The EEOC states on its web site that graduates of the Honor Program go on to serve as trial attorneys or Administrative Judges in the EEOC’s District Offices. Since the vast majority of recent law clerks and law and graduate students are under the age of 40, it is not a stretch to conclude that the  EEOC program has a disparate impact upon attorneys who are aged 40 and above.  That’s supposed to be illegal under the ADEA.

Criticism of an administration or federal agency often is dismissed as partisan politics.  I do criticize  the Obama administration, the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress for abandoning older workers during the worst recession in 100 years.  Millions of older Americans remain subject to pervasive discriminatory hiring practices and bogus layoffs and restructurings. I do not argue, however, that the Republicans would have done better than the Democrats. I simply don’t think they could have done much worse. That’s why I support Bernie.

‘Transgender’ Now Accorded More Protection than ‘Age’

There is a national movement going on right now to boycott states that force transgendered individuals to use the restrooms of their biological sex rather than their chosen identity.

Many companies, including  Target, have denounced  laws that restrict  a transgender individual’s choice of bathroom as sex discrimination.  Some major American corporations  have threatened to withdraw from North Carolina because it has limited the right of transgendered individual to use their bathroom of choice. Moreover, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit recently voted 2-1 to uphold the  U.S. Education Dept.’s position that it constitutes illegal sex discrimination to exclude transgender students from the bathrooms of their chosen gender identities.

According to the most frequently cited estimate, 700,000 people in the United States, or about 0.2 to 0.3 percent of the population, identify as transgender.

Compare this to the millions of older workers who each year are subject to epidemic and overt age discrimination in employment with nary a hint of protest or outrage from anyone, including organizations that purport to advocate for older Americans and civil rights.

 Indeed, at this point, transgender people technically have greater rights under the law than older workers to be free from invidious discrimination.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission contends that trangendered individuals are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin and color. By contrast, age discrimination falls under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, (ADEA), which permits “reasonable” age discrimination by employers.   Title VII also contains penalties that are far more onerous than those of the ADEA.

Why have the rights of millions of older Americans to be free from irrational and harmful employment discrimination been ignored for 50 years?

The rights of transgendered individuals are at issue today because advocates in  the gay and lesbian communities and in the entertainment community have taken a public stand to combat ignorance and prejudice against transgendered individuals. This has essentially forced major corporations to adopt policies prohibiting discrimination against the transgendered so as not to be seen as endorsing transgender discrimination.

Alas, the same is not true for older workers.

No one is demanding that Congress  or the courts accord equal rights to older workers under the law, including the AARP, the EEOC  and the American Civil Liberties Union.  Meanwhile, the same corporations that demand rights for the transgendered are engaging in systemic age discrimination.

The plight of older workers began in 1964  when Congress refused to include age as a protected class in Title VII.  After three years of lobbying by business interests, Congress passed the ADEA, a severely watered down version of Title VII that  has exposed generations of older Americans  to wholesale and perfectly legal age discrimination in employment, especially in hiring.

There also is little public sympathy for older workers.  Stereotypes about older people are profoundly negative  (i.e. rigid, feeble, depressed). Older workers often are seen by younger workers as impediments to job advancement and limited resources. Employers, including the U.S. government, treat older workers like an obstacle to a more diverse workforce. Moreover, researchers say many people subconsciously associate aging with death and disease.  There also is little understanding about the long-term and severe impacts of age discrimination, which condemns millions of women  to decades of poverty in their later years.

Of course, these observations are not meant to begrudge transgender individuals their basic human right to be treated with dignity and respect but simply to point out that older Americans too deserve to be free from invidious and harmful  discrimination.  If every type of irrational and harmful  discrimination is treated with the same degree of condemnation and outrage, there will be far less discrimination against all Americans, including transgendered individuals.

Age Leads in Discrimination Complaints Filed by Federal Employees

ObamaMore  complaints alleging age discrimination were filed by federal employees each year from 2010 to 2014 than complaints alleging  race or disability discrimination.

The Annual Report on the Federal Work Force states that age was a basis for 4,697 complaints filed by federal employees in 2014, compared to 3,838 complaints of race discrimination and 3,817 complaints of  (physical) disability.  Age discrimination was, by far, the leading basis for complaints filed by federal employees each year during the four-year period, with a high of 5,314 age discrimination complaints filed in 2010.

Yet, the federal government, which is the nation’s largest employer,  has done virtually nothing – if anything  – to address the problem of age discrimination in federal employment. In fact,  President Barack Obama made the problem considerably worse in 2010 when he signed an executive order  to permit federal agencies to discriminate in hiring on the basis of age in hiring.  The order exempts the federal government from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which expressly prohibits using age as a consideration in hiring.

President Obama couched his order permitting age discrimination in federal hiring as a diversity measure.

The president argued in his executive order that the federal government is at a disadvantage in hiring students and recent graduates because of civil service regulations (that were passed in 1871 to prevent cronyism and to  ensure fairness in hiring). He added that  “students and recent graduates … infuse the workplace with their enthusiasm, talents, and unique perspectives.”  (Does this mean that older workers don’t?)

Underlying President Obama’s executive order is the assumption that America must choose between the worthy goal of nurturing young workers and the ideal of equal opportunity for all.  But is this choice really necessary? The United States has the world’s largest national economy, with a gross domestic product estimated to be $17.914 trillion in 2015. The pie is big enough to make sound policy decisions that boost employment for younger workers without consigning older workers to irrational discrimination, chronic unemployment and poverty. Continue reading “Age Leads in Discrimination Complaints Filed by Federal Employees”

Hulk Hogan v. Two Alleged Age Discrimination Victims

A review of the New York Times today provides a stark demonstration of the arbitrary way that society assesses damage to individuals.

There is a front page story about a Florida jury verdict ordering to pay wrestler Hulk Hogan $115 million in damages for publishing a grainy security video depicting Hogan having sex with a friend’s partner. Of that amount, $55 million was for economic harm and $50 million was for emotional distress. (Hogan subsequently was awarded an additional $25 million in punitive damages.)

Another story, featured in the business section, chronicles the demoralizing travails of Julianne Taaffe, 60, and Kathryn Moon, 65, who taught English as a second language (ESL) at Ohio State University for decades until they were forced to retire as a result of an alleged campaign of illegal age discrimination and harassment.

The maximum damage award permitted under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)  is a total of two-times the amount of monetary damage suffered by the plaintiffs.  The ADEA does not permit plaintiffs to recover damages for emotional distress or punitive damages,  though these damages are permitted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, color and national origin. So if Taaffe and Moon’s case ever gets to a jury  the most they could recover is whatever salary and benefits they lost, possibly doubled.

And while the evidence against OSU is what some would call overwhelming, it is far from certain that Taaffe and Moon’s lawsuit ever will reach a jury.  Taaffe and Moon were forced to sue five Ohio State University (OSU) officials individually rather than the university because the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that  the concept of  sovereign immunity prevents an award of monetary damages in federal lawsuits against state agencies (including universities).   OSU has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the ADEA does not permit plaintiffs to sue individual government employees.

Taaffe and Moon claim in the lawsuit that OSU systematically drove out older teachers in the university’s English as a Second Language Program. Continue reading “Hulk Hogan v. Two Alleged Age Discrimination Victims”

Impossible Hurdles for Age Discrimination Plaintiffs

One wonders how the plaintiffs might have persuaded  the federal appeals court panel that they were the victims of age discrimination absent a futuristic device that reads an  employer’s mind.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia recently granted a pre-trial motion to dismiss an age discrimination lawsuit because the plaintiffs failed to prove the employer’s stated reason for firing them was a pretext or a  lie.

Assistant District Attorneys Edward Gallen, 65, and Robert Miller, 57, were fired shortly after the 2011 election of District Attorney Tom Hogan in Chester County, Pennsylvania.   Hogan requested the termination papers prior to taking office. He fired the men for “poor performance.” He then made public statements that he planned to reorganize the office and establish a “modern” prosecutor’s office.

The appeals court panel ruled that “no reasonable factfinder should infer an intent to discriminate in hiring based on age from Hogan’s platitude about modernizing the District Attorney’s Office.”

Moreover, Hogan fired a total of four assistant district attorneys in their 50s and 60s, including Gallen and Miller, and then hired five younger attorneys in ages ranging from 27 to 42.  The appeals court panel agreed that “on the surface” this looked bad but said it fell short of what was needed to show age discrimination.  The court said the plaintiffs failed to show that Hogan had refused to hire more experienced attorneys who were older.

The third circuit panel said the plaintiffs were required to “point to some evidence, direct or circumstantial, from which a factfinder could reasonably either disbelieve the employer’s articulated legitimate reasons … or believe that an invidious discriminatory reason was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the employer’s actions.”

The ruling raises a question about whether it is even possible for an age discrimination plaintiff to withstand a motion for summary judgment in the third circuit without direct evidence, such as a memo from a supervisor stating that employee is being fired because s/he is too old.

Is it realistic today to expect savvy employers to commit their illegal intentions to paper?

Technically, it’s not supposed to be a high bar for plaintiffs to withstand a motion for summary judgment, which is a pretrial motion filed by the employer to dismiss the case prior to trial  because “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.”  Under federal rules, judges are required to give the plaintiffs (not the employer) every benefit of the doubt. Traditionally, it has been thought that questions of intent and decisions about a witness’ credibility are best left to juries, not to  federal judges who have lifetime tenure and don’t have to worry about a new guy taking office and firing them because they’re too old.

The decision was issued by Judge Thomas Ambro,  Chief Judge Thomas  A. McKee and  Senior Circuit Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica.  It seems worth noting that Scirica is 76 and voluntarily accepted semi-retired status in 2010, at which time he began collecting a fat government pension plus his earnings as a part-time federal judge.

The third district covers Delaware, New Jersey and the Eastern, Middle and Western districts of Pennsylvania.