The Master Servant Rule Is Challenged At Starbucks, New York Times

Since the 1800s, American workers have been subject to the so-called “employment at will” doctrine, which basically holds that employers reign supreme in the workplace.

Under the employment at will doctrine, workers can be fired for any reason that does not violate a law or important public policy. Unscrupulous employers have used the policy to fire workers who have demanded their rights. The doctrine is based on an obscure 1877  treatist written iby an Albany attorney called the “Master and Servant” rule. 

  In recent weeks, however, social media and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement have shaken the employment at will doctrine to its core. 

Staffers who support BLM  have forced their employers to change fundamental policies – including workers at two large American companies, The New York Times and Starbucks – with breathtaking speed. Continue reading “The Master Servant Rule Is Challenged At Starbucks, New York Times”

AARP Rewrites Modern History Of Age Discrimination; Emerges Heroic

The AARP has devoted an issue of its monthly publication to age discrimination in which it announces that ageism remains an “accepted bias” and assures readers that it is “fighting” the problem

But the AARP fails to note that the AARP quashed a story that was supposed to run in the issue about the federal government’s  Pathway’s Program, which excludes older workers from federal jobs, reportedly because it didn’t want to jeopardize its federal grants or rock the boat.

The AARP also omits the fact that it virtually ignored age discrimination until after the 2014 publication of my  groundbreaking book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. which exposes the failure of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) to protect older workers during and since the Great Recession. Continue reading “AARP Rewrites Modern History Of Age Discrimination; Emerges Heroic”

A Million Violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act?

What happens when  an individual or group asserts a human right that interferes with another individual or group’s rights and freedoms?

If the disadvantaged group is older Americans, their rights silently slip away.

Earlier this month, a coalition of 55 top U.S. companies  called The 100,000 Opportunities Initiative issued a press release touting a  “long-term effort” in the Atlanta area to bring jobs to “youth” aged 16 to 24 who are not in school or unemployed. Coalition members made thousands of on-the-spot job offers at a job fair on May 3. Coalition members have held similar hiring  events in Washington,  D.C., Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Phoenix and Seattle since the coalition’s formation six years ago.

The coalition now says it “aims to hire at least 1 million youth nationally  by 2021.”

The problem is that it is illegal under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) to refuse to hire workers aged 40 and above because of their age or, alternatively, because they aren’t between the ages of 16 and 24.  It also is illegal for a company to adopt a policy or practice  that has a disparate impact upon older workers.  Clearly, the rights of older workers to be free from invidious age discrimination in hiring have given way … but to what exactly? Continue reading “A Million Violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act?”

Age Discrimination Masquerades as Good Deed

Twenty-nine U.S. corporations so far  have signed onto an “initiative” to discriminate against older workers through the “100,000 Opportunities Initiative.”

The “employer led coalition,” which has received the blessing of the Obama administration,  blatantly violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).

The Aspen Institute’s Forum for Community Solutions, which describes itself as an “intermediary” for the initiative in the hiring cities, issued a press release Wednesday stating that coalition employers will  “make hundreds of immediate job offers” to disadvantaged “youth” between the ages of 16 to 24 in the Chicago area next week.

The ADEA unambiguously prohibits using age as a consideration in hiring. Starbucks, a corporate leader of the coalition, and U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez   have failed to provide any legal justification for a hiring program that on its face violates the ADEA. Meanwhile, the media and the AARP have ignored this blatant demonstration of government-backed age discrimination by America’s top corporations.

In a press release, the Aspen Forum refers indirectly to the discriminatory nature of the program: “The participating companies are committed to diversity and equal employment opportunity, and the Opportunity Initiative does not prevent opportunities for older workers. Its purpose is to open up new opportunities that currently do not exist for some youth.”

The facts speak for themselves. Jobs will be designated for workers in a specific age group. Workers aged 40 and over are expressly excluded from applying for these jobs. That’s age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. Continue reading “Age Discrimination Masquerades as Good Deed”

Starbucks’ De-Caffeinated Response to Age Discrim.

A spokesperson for Starbucks made a mystifying distinction Wednesday in an apparent effort to justify what appears to be blatant age discrimination in hiring under the recently announced 100,000 Opportunity Initiative.

Starbucks is spearheading an effort by more than a dozen major American corporations to hire 100,000 16- to 24- year olds by 2018.  Other partners include Walmart and Microsoft,

In an email, a spokesperson for Starbucks made a distinction between a collective hiring initiative and individual hiring decisions. “Age is not a factor in individual hiring decisions, and our 100,000 jobs for Opportunity Youth is incremental to our already ambitious hiring goals across the nation,” writes Jarryd (no last name provided)  of Starbucks Media Team.

Yeah but the Age Discrimination in Employment Act  (ADEA) makes no distinction between hiring 100,000 workers or hiring individual workers. The ADEA unambiguously states that it is unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire” any individual “because of such individual’s age.” Would any of these corporations defend a plan to hire 100,000 Christians on the grounds that it was also willing to hire a Muslim or Jew?

The corporations are couching the initiative as a well-intentioned effort to help young people who face systemic barriers to jobs and education. That’s irrelevant too. The ADEA prohibits age discrimination (with a few exceptions that are not applicable here). Does anyone doubt that good intentions were used to justify discriminatory laws throughout history that oppressed women and minorities?  Besides, older workers also face systemic barriers to jobs and education. As a result of age discrimination, a disproportionate number of women and minorities are dumped into an unwanted “early retirement” and decades of poverty or near poverty.

Starbucks also attempted to characterize the future hires as “youth.”   Jarryd said the 100,000 Opportunities Initiative “has the collective goal of engaging at least 100,000 Opportunity Youth.”  However, the dictionary defines youth as “adolescence”; the term is not applicable to young workers who are over the age of 18.

It is a laudable goal to help unemployed youth and young adults find jobs but age discrimination is inherently harmful to the fabric of American society. And did I forget to mention – it’s illegal!

Jarryd did not directly respond to my specific question – “What legal justification exists for engaging in age discrimination in hiring under the initiative?”

Meanwhile, queries to the media office of the U.S. Department of Labor  have been ignored.  Starbucks sent out a press release in which it quoted U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez as calling the initiative it a “win-win.” He also expressed hope that other employers would join in. In an open letter to Perez, I noted that by enacting the ADEA the U.S. Congress announced its clear preference for public policy initiative over discriminatory hiring. Did I mention that it is  illegal to discriminate on the basis of age?

The problem of age discrimination is so prevalent in American society that it is invisible.

If it’s not bad enough that the U.S. Secy. of Labor endorsed the initiative, not one media outlet even questioned the discriminatory nature of the program.

Meanwhile, groups that one might hope would express displeasure about this celebration of corporate age discrimination have been  silent,  including so-called advocacy groups like the AARP (the leading purveyor of Medigap insurance in the United States) and unions. Can it be that these groups are not knowledgeable about  the ADEA?   Is it  just that they don’t care?  I would argue that we all should care about age discrimination in employment because it  exacts a terrible toll on its victims and society picks up the tab in lost productivity and higher health and social welfare costs.  Moreover, epidemic and unaddressed age discrimination undermines the basic principle upon which America was founded – equal justice.