The Next Time You See A Red Library Cart, Think of Mary Inman

Mary Inman, 56, served as a librarian in the children’s program at Lemont Library in the Chicago area for more than 30 years.

Then she required a knee replacement.

Thereafter, Inman was subjected to what many would consider to be shocking treatment by the library director, Sandra Pointon, who fired Inman on August 6, 2018.

And now a federal judge has dismissed Inman’s lawsuit alleging a hostile work environment in violation of the American with Disabilities Act and a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. U.S. District Judge Charles P. Kocoras, 82, who is a senior or semi-retired judge, cited insufficiencies in the drafting of the complaint and then refused to allow Inman to file an amended complaint.

According Judge Kocoras’ ruling, here’s what Inman alleges she endured:

Lemont Library Director Pointon acted “annoyed and impatient” when she learned in 2017 that Inman would need left and right knee replacement surgeries.
Inman tried to accommodate her condition by using a red library book cart, upon which she placed books, to get around the library. Pointon initially suggested Inman, who also used a cane, “get a scooter” and then directed a maintenance worker to move the red cart from the library altogether.
Pointon told Inman “not to seek help” from her co-workers and sent an email to library staff telling them not to move Inman’s car in the parking lot, bring Inman coffee and tea and to “observe her and record” Inman’s actions. She said she didn’t invite Inman to a conference because “I didn’t think that you would be able to get around.”
In April 2018, Pointon gave Inman a “written disciplinary action” for not keeping track of her time. Though Inman was a manager, she required Inman to use a punch time clock. She also told Inman to meet with her on a weekly basis to review her work performance.
Pointon then installed a surveillance security camera near the Children’s Activity Center, where Inman worked, and refused to replace Inman’s broken desk chair.
Pointon hired a younger person and assigned her some of Inman’s work responsibilities even though Inman was still working.
Without consulting Inman, Pointon submitted a temporary disability application on Inman’s behalf. Inman had intended to use vacation and sick days to account for her absences from work.
After her first knee surgery, Inman returned to work and told Pointon she needed an accommodation for another surgery on her other knee. Pointon responded: “We’ll see.”
Pointon “would yell criticisms of Inman across the library which caused library patrons to privately express concern to Inman.”
After Inman was fired, she was replaced by a significantly younger person.

How could the above account fail to be the basis of a legal claim strong enough to proceed past the initial filing stage?

Technically, a complaint must only be a “short and plain statement … showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Attorneys for Lemont Library argued that Inman did not show she suffered harassme that was “severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment.” Judge Kocaras agreed.

EEOC Acting Chair says it’s time for “thorough Review” of Age Discrimination in Employment Act

EEOC Acting Chair Victoria Lipnic said Thursday the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 – which turns 50 Friday – “deserves a thorough review to insure it is meeting the needs of today’s workforce.”

In addition, she said, “We need a cultural awakening. Instead of negative expectations, how about recognizing the positives? Age diverse teams and cross-generational mentoring produce real benefits for both workers and employers.”

“Utilizing the talent of everyone, regardless of age, is good business. This is talent that our economy cannot afford to waste. . .” – Lipnic

Lipnic was not specific about why she believes the ADEA deserves a thorough review; how the ADEA may be failing to meet the needs of today’s workforce; and whether the ADEA will indeed get the thorough review that it deserves.

Lipnic focused on what she characterized as the ADEA’s success. She noted the ADEA was adopted in 1967 when “age discrimination was blatant. Workers over age 45 were barred from many jobs based solely on their age and mandatory retirement was commonplace for those in their 60s. Since then the ADEA has largely stopped openly discriminatory practices. But age discrimination is still too common and often accepted.” She said older workers continue to confront negative stereotypes and that age discrimination deprives them of their dignity and financial security.

But is the ADEA a success?

Others would point to evidence that age discrimination remains blatant, epidemic and unaddressed 50 years after the ADEA’s adoption.

Continue reading “EEOC Acting Chair says it’s time for “thorough Review” of Age Discrimination in Employment Act”

Is the EEOC Finally Noticing Age Discrimination?

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed its second lawsuit this month alleging age discrimination, indicating a possible uptick in EEOC efforts in this long-neglected area.

The lawsuit touches upon the widespread problem of discriminatory hiring practices in the legal profession, which vies with higher education as the most egregious in terms age discrimination.

In my new book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, I note the EEOC has essentially ignored a record increase in age discrimination complaints filed with the agency during and since the Great Recession. For example, the EEOC received more than 21,000 age discrimination complaints in 2013 but filed only seven lawsuits with age discrimination claims that year. Meanwhile, older workers are mired in the ranks of the chronically unemployed and under-employed until they are forced into a penurious early “retirement.”

The EEOC charges that Strategic Legal Resources, Inc., a staffing firm that does business as Strategic Legal Solutions, rescinded an offer of hire made to attorney Claudia Zacks after she complied with a company request to provide her date of birth. Zacks was 70 years of age at the time.

The Executive Director of the company’s Real Estates Services Division in New York City emailed Zacks in August 2012 and offered her a position to work on a document review project that was to begin the next day in Novi, Michigan. After Zacks accepted, the company asked Zacks to provide additional information, including her date of birth.

The lawsuit alleges that a Recruitment Coordinator for the company called Zacks and insisted that Zacks “could not possibly arrive at the job site in time on the next day.” Zacks finally expressed concern the company was rescinding its job offer because of her age. The Recruitment Coordinator “responded that not only would Zacks not work on this assignment but she would be placed on the ‘do not use’ list and she need not apply for future job opportunities” with the company.

The EEOC charges that Strategic Legal Solutions also denied Zack future employment. In Spring 2013, Zack answered an anonymous Craigslist posting for individuals interested in working on a document review project. Zacks was hired by a different Strategic Legal Solutions office to work on a document review project in Novi, Michigan. After three days on the project, she was summarily terminated.

The lawsuit asks the court to order Strategic Legal Solutions to pay Zachs appropriate back wages, liquidated damages and interest.

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, it is illegal “for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of such individual’s age, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of such individual’s age.” However, a glance at internet employment sites will show that this provision is widely ignored by employers, employment agencies and even the federal government, all of whom seek applicants who are “recent” college graduates.

New Book on the Legalization of Age Discrimination

Even Workers Otherwise Considered to be Young are Vulnerable

Why are workers in their 30s, 40s and 50s increasingly experiencing age discrimination?

This one of the issues I explore in my new book: Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The short answer is that age discrimination has become normalized due to a confluence of failures by American institutions that have effectively gutted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).

Almost 50 years after the ADEA’s passage, age discrimination remains epidemic in the United States, hidden behind terms such as “long-term unemployment” and “early retirement.” And the problem is trickling down to ever younger workers.

Did you know:

• The new titans of commerce in Silicon Valley openly flaunt the ADEA . Workers in their 30s use Botox and hide their families to avoid the appearance of middle age.

• The U.S. Supreme Court eviscerated the ADEA in 2009 just as the Great Recession fueled unprecedented incentive for employers to rid their payrolls of higher paid older workers. The U.S. Congress easily could have “fixed” the problem by passing the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA) but has not done so.

• The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received 21,296 age discrimination complaints in 2013; the agency filed seven lawsuits that year with age discrimination claims.

• Forty percent of workers in households nearing retirement age have no retirement assets whatsoever, whether in an employer-sponsored 401(k) type plan or an IRA. Reasons for this include age discrimination, long-term unemployment, and the decline of traditional pensions.

Of course, age discrimination is problematic for younger workers but it is a devastating life-altering catastrophe for older workers . They often are plunged into long-term unemployment or forced to take poorly-paid part-time or temp work until they age into early retirement, which will result in significantly lower Social Security benefits for the rest of their lives.

Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace is now available as an e-book at Amazon.com, http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00MYREMRY. It is also available in paperback at https://www.createspace.com/4960074 and from Ingram Spark.

Please pick up a copy and I would grateful if you would take the time to review it on Amazon!

‘Want Ads’ and Age Discrimination

Are you a recent college graduate … Pulte Mortgage (a subsidiary of Pulte Homes) is always looking for energetic and motivated individuals who are ready to take the first step in building a long-term mortgage career! – Simply Hired, 6/26/14.

“We are currently seeking an associate with 2-3 (MAXIMUM) years of Labor and Employment experience.” – Craig’s List, 6/26/14

Anyone who doesn’t think that age discrimination is rampant and unaddressed in American society should take a look at the “want ads.”

An easy and obvious way that employers discriminate against older applicants is to require job applicants to be recent college graduates or to have a maximum amount of experience. These types of advertisements are seen on most if not all Internet hiring sites.

One reason the U.S. Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in 1967 was to prohibit job advertisements that barred applicants over a certain age from applying. At that time, one-half of all private-sector job openings explicitly barred applicants over the age of 55 and one-quarter barred workers over the age of 45. More than 60 percent of low-skilled industrial jobs had age cut-offs between 35 and 49 years of age, and 13 percent of sales jobs were limited to workers under the age of 35.

Imagine being 35 years old and barred from applying for a sales job! Wait a minute. You don’t have to. You can be barred from applying for a sales job today at the age of 35 if you have more than two or three years of experience.

Continue reading “‘Want Ads’ and Age Discrimination”