Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
Many of these have been challenged throughout the years.
In fact, here have been a number of cases challenging age discrimination within this more complicated situation. In the case, EEOC v. City of Janesville an individual fought the fifty-five-year cut off age for police officers in that county (Vance 1986). Opponents of the age cut off argued that age discrimination was acceptable only in "particular business," meaning for police officers on the front line of duty, and was not acceptable in cases where police officers had moved from the field into other positions in the department that required less physical strength and fitness capabilities. However, the opposition was shot down. EEOC v. City of St. Paul was another case where opponents of age discrimination wanted to clarify that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was not to use simple age guidelines as a way to terminate police officers, but all removal should be based on abilities alone, despite of age (Vance 1986). This was similar to another case, Mahoney v. Trabucco, where "the unanimous opinion expressed the concept that within any particular business, specific conditions may exist requiring separate age limitations" (Vance 1986 p 427). Essentially, age cut offs cannot be used in the same manner across all positions within law enforcement. A police dispatcher does not need to be in the same peak physical condition as a member of the SWAT team, and as such, age discriminatory practices must be reasonable for such positions within law enforcement that do not require necessary physical fitness. The lack of a clear definition of how much of a role age can play makes it difficult to effectively generate more cohesive legal decisions throughout the years in regards to termination or demotion processes dealing with an older workforce population.
Moreover, many law enforcement agencies use age limits in their hiring processes as well. Here, the research suggests that "the use of an age limit in initial protective service hiring has been explained as necessary because of the extended periods of training and the need for availability of career progression in order to attract candidates" (Vance 1986 p 438). When a police officer is hired at an older age, that essentially limits the amount of training that he or she can be exposed to, thus limiting the extent of their career overall. As such, there are age limits in regards to new hires that are practiced throughout law enforcement agencies across the country. As such, "the employer does not want to put time and money into training someone who they plan to retire ten to fifteen years later" (Vance 1986 p 441). Age limits for hiring practices have become the latest controversial trend in law enforcement agencies. This is even witnessed in federal law enforcement agencies as well. According to Bransford (2012), "Congress has specifically said that it wants a young and vigorous workforce in these professions and has authorized a more lucrative retirement system for those who work in the covered field for at least 20 years." This is in order to meet a series of new challenges and demands in an ever changing and technological world environment. Congress has specifically stated that a younger workforce would potentially provide stronger foundations for success in nation and worldwide law enforcement goals.
This is still a very controversial field, without concrete answers to ensure a greater good is met. No, "the absence of definitive, validated performance tests and a job task analysis for police officers means that each individual assessment of a police officer for retirement or a police candidate for hiring is a potential source of litigation," (Schiff 1993 p 18). In order to further test the nature of age discrimination in law enforcement roles, several tests have been established throughout the years. Safety factors have long been compared to the increased age restrictions present in law enforcement agencies across the country (Schiff 1993). These tests evaluate the validity of a relationship between a younger workforce and increased safety results, thus benefiting the community at large.
From this perspective, age restrictions serve out of a utilitarian perspective in that they serve the greater benefit of the good and are thus worth the potential risks to a few.
Contemporary judicial decisions have continued to back trends that allow levels of age discrimination in employment decisions, both in regards to hiring and termination of employees within various law enforcement agencies. Such trends are also spurred on by continuing legislative efforts to allow the exemption of law enforcement agencies to typical age discrimination rules and regulation. The primary idea remains the importance of public safety. Since police officers and other law enforcement officials play an important role in that safety, there has been a general outcry for a younger, more vigorous workforce. Still, the lack of a clear definition between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in regards to age discriminatory practices in law enforcement has generated a back log of ongoing suits and complications. It is clear that Congress and local officials need to correlate a stronger understanding of what is off limits in the future.
Bransford, Bill. (2012). Age discrimination vs. mandatory retirement. Federal Times. Web. http://blogs.federaltimes.com/federal-law/2012/10/29/age-discrimination-versus-mandatory-retirement/
Idaho Commission on Human Rights. (2007). Age discrimination. Human Rights. Web. http://humanrights.idaho.gov/discrimination/age.html
Schiff, Martin. (1993). The Age Discrimination in Employment Act: Whither the bona fide occupational qualification and law enforcement exemptions? St. John's Law Review, 67(1), 13-44.
Sloan, Eric. (2009). Police over 40: Age discrimination is now easier for your department. Examiner. Web. http://www.examiner.com/article/police-over-40-age-discrimination-is-now-easier-for-your-department
United States Department of Labor. (1975). Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Statutes. Web. http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/age_act.htm
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1967). The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Statutes. Web. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1986). ADEA Amendments 1986. The Law. Web. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/adea_amendments_1986.html
Vance, K.K. (19986). Fitness or age as an occupational qualification for protective service workers: A choice between bona fide criterion or arbitrary…[continue]
"Law Enforcement And Age Discrimination" (2013, April 22) Retrieved December 8, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/law-enforcement-and-age-discrimination-90152
"Law Enforcement And Age Discrimination" 22 April 2013. Web.8 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/law-enforcement-and-age-discrimination-90152>
"Law Enforcement And Age Discrimination", 22 April 2013, Accessed.8 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/law-enforcement-and-age-discrimination-90152
It was after a lot of concern expressed in this matter and after a long legal and judicial consideration that the legislature passed the act. Legal Enforcement The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the authority that enforces the legislation on age discrimination namely the 'Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 - ADEA'. This act is designed to protect individuals who are about forty or above years of age the
In this regard, Lott points out, "Between 70% and 80% of police departments explicitly use norming of physical standards in their hiring practices. However, most of the departments that use objective standards do not enforce these rules. Women who fail to meet the absolute standards during academy training are unlikely to be failed out of the program" (p. 276). This lack of consistency in how these standards are applied
If police, along with others in society, perceive high risk sex offenders as humans who possess the potential to be rehabilitated, then incidences of possible discrimination against these individuals might decrease. This in turn, the researcher contends, could contribute to incidences of sexual offences being prevented and/or reduced. Even though the researcher never generally cared about how high risk sex offenders felt, the conviction that discrimination is wrong over-rode
Indeed, the most serious health issue related to domestic violence of course is mortality, and the California Women's Law Center (CWLC) conducted a survey of 100 murders of women by their male intimate partners. The results are very germane for those interested in health-related gender fairness through the law in California. CWLC found that in 59% of the surveyed cases of women homicide victims the murder was not the first
State regulations prohibit discrimination on the basis of explicit protected categories, including age, in any program or activity that is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance from the state (Black, 2002). The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and the federal implementing regulations at 34 Code of Federal Regulations part 110, prohibit discrimination based on age in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. All California
Discrimination involves classifying people into different groups and giving the members of each group distinct and typically unequal treatments and rights (Wikipedia, 2003). The criteria defining the groups determine the type of discrimination. Use of the term implies that the factors on which the discrimination is based are intrinsically irrelevant to the decision being made. Typically, the discriminator views himself as superior to the injured group. The effects of discrimination
Looking at the claims of John Doe and the possible defenses by ABC Science as an attorney, I would recommend that the company reach some type of settlement with Mr. Doe allowing him to retain a position within the company. His claim under the ADA appears to be very strong and supported by the facts. An adverse decision could be damaging to the company, not only financially, but also from