Most of the growth in this area has been attributed to the fact that there is an increasingly large number of aging employees found in the workplace as the baby boomer generation becomes more mature and moves toward retirement. There have been some accusations of age discrimination based on an underlying motivation of firing an employee that is getting close to retirement age so that the company is able to save on pension and retirement benefits.

Since the year 2000, age discrimination claims have risen each year. However, some people attempt to discount these cases as simply being a component of the overall growth in employment layoffs and the general economic situation since the beginning of this millennium.

According to statistics, anytime there is an increase in layoffs and workforce downsizing the number of age discrimination claims spikes. Experts comment that during times of higher unemployment some of the claims of people being discriminated again due to age are legitimate while others are simply taking advantage of the situation and their age to attempt to receive a monetary settlement through the courts.

Under the United States Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or the ADEA bill, employers are not allowed to discriminate when hiring and firing employees or make any provisions in terms or conditions of employment if the employee is age 40 or older. There is no protection under this law for any employee who is age 39 or younger.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act was passed in 1967, and this 40 year old only applies to businesses that employ at least 20 people. Any person who believes that they have been discriminated against because of age, and is able to prove such discrimination, is entitled to received damages.

The damages that can be requested in an age discrimination case can include any loss of income, an award for emotional distress, and the reimbursement for legal fees incurred in taking the case to court. In addition, the judge hearing the case has the latitude under the Federal law to double the amount of damages actually awarded and some state laws even allow for a tripling of damages.

However, proving the act of age discrimination can be a difficult task to do and the middle age or senior person who finds themselves in a situation where they believe they are being discriminated again has the burden of proving it in court. In order to prevail in such a case the employee must be able to show that there was some adverse action taken against them that was based on their age.

Adverse action because of age discrimination can include much more than termination of employment. It can also include situations such as an employee being passed over for a promotion or being denied a raise or cost of living adjustment, when it is claimed that this was brought about because of the middle age or senior age of the person. In addition, discrimination could be found in situations of a negative environment in the workplace or an unfair assignment of duties or clients if the root is because of the age of the employee.

The act of simply replacing an older employee with someone who is younger is not sufficient evidence to prove age discrimination. Nor does replacing a senior employee who earns a higher salary with a less experienced, and younger, employee who is at a lower earning level mean that an illegal act has occurred. The bottom line is that in order for an employer to be liable in an age discrimination case, it must be shown that an intentional adverse action was taken based on the age of the employee.

Speaking of faces, let's face it. Corporate America likes to project a young face. It remains an ugly fact that age discrimination abounds in the American workplace. Plastic surgeons are reporting that about 22% of men and 15% of women are having cosmetic surgery for purposes or career and business. Some are in their thirties. The chief motivation is to compete successfully against more youthful employees in the workplace. So, what's your opinion? Will it help?

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

U.S. government statistics show that an increasing number of people are seeking cosmetic surgery to get ahead in the workplace. Cosmetic procedures for men more than doubled from 2003 to 2004, and surgeons say they receive inquiries from real estate agents, lawyers, airline pilots and business executives and the like.

Other studies in the U.S. have indicated that attractive and younger-looking people are more successful and earn more.

Please let us hear more from you in the comments section below.

The fact is that, if any candidate for U.S. political office were to advocate Prime Minister Loong's plan, it  would, no doubt, spell political suicide. In a nutshell, he is introducing legislation which would require re-employment of older workers.

The proposed law would require employers to offer re-employment to workers reaching retirement age, which, in Singapore, is 62. Over time, this would rise to age 65 and later would go up to 67. Also, as proposed, the government will provide financial incentives for aging employees to continue working, and for employers to hire them.

Like the United States, Singapore is seeing rapid growth of an aging population. From 1970, life expectancy has increased from 65.9 to 79.9. Among other things, there are concerns that people's savings will not stretch far enough to see them comfortably through an expanded life expectancy. Hmm... this sound like a well worn refrain we hear from the mouths U.S. baby boomers, doesn't it?

Given the cultural and political landscape in the U.S., however, Loong's proposal could be seen as approaching insanity. First, culturally we're in deep denial about aging. Next, we abhor cradle to grave thinking to the point of almost total neglect in finding ways to fix a chaotic, out of control health care system. Issues surrounding aging simply are off the political radar screen.

Frankly, I think this refreshing Singaporean proposition for solving problems of work place age discrimination, and mitigating the inevitable monstrous costs of dealing with aging multitudes, merits serious consideration here in the U.S. Will that happen? Probably not!

Current population trends demonstrate that the U.S. workforce will continue to shrink. Older people today are generally healthier and more vigorous than their earlier counterparts. They're eager and willing to work and continue contributing to society. As the following article states, age does not matter.

Age Does Not Matter
By Rainier Policarpio

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 favor 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.

"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."

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

Further Comment

Old is not bad, and that pertains to employment of older workers. Some employers assume that the experience carried by prospective older employees means that they will be expensive. Studies show, however, that older people seeking work are not overly concerned about compensation levels. Their wish primarily is to remain active and vital. It's time for employers to abandon stereotypes about older applicants. Not only that, it's the law!

In the July, 2007 edition, the feature article is entitled "Growing, and graying, attorney population hits retirement age".  It seems that, as of 2006, 35% of California lawyers are over 55, up from 14% in 1991. What struck me, though, was the extent to which lawyers, even senior partners in law firms, are falling victim to age discrimination.

Traditionally, law firms have had a patriarchal structure in which older partners transition into managing, commonly remaining in that capacity in perpetuity. All that is changing.

As an example, the Los Angeles County Bar Association President is quoted with a story about a friend who was billing $600 and hour for his firm with scores of clients and who felt he deserved to take a little leisure time.  He was told that he would have to continue billing 2,000 hours a year if he wanted to stay. He chose to leave.

Today, some firms are simply giving partners reaching 65 the boot without offering any choice. Often the bad news comes from those who have been close associates for many years. This shift suggests that patriarchal direction is being look at as old-fashioned, ineffective and anachronistic.

If there's a culprit here, it's what the profession calls "billable hours". When I first began in the profession, no one tossed that term around. What's happened over the last few decades is that law firms have become law factories.  Many years ago, a corporate lawyer billing 1,500 annually was considered the norm.  These days it's 2,000 hours and some firms demand $2,200, even from senior members. This leads to many older lawyers being forced to continue performing at these draconian levels, or to drop out.

Some in the older crowd are not going easily.  A group of 32 ousted by a large Chicago law firm have persuaded the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a lawsuit on their behalf.  They allege that they were involuntarily downgraded or forced to retire. While it's clear that employees of the firm would be covered by the anti-discrimination laws, the issue is whether they apply, as well, to law firm partners. A conclusion is anticipated this summer.

One thing I know to be true about attorneys. Identity and career are critical to how they feel about themselves and interact with others.  Being told they are dead weight does not go down well.  Moreover, there's the perception that they're being pushed out so that younger lawyers can take a larger slices of pies in million dollar plus proportions.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Illinois EEOC proceeding.  More about age discrimination in the legal profession will be revealed.