Age Discrimination in Employment Act (Adea) Bans

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) bans age discrimination in hiring and firing of employees. The act specifically states that an age limit on any occupation may only be specified in the rare circumstance where age has been proven to be a bona fide occupational qualification, which is not the case of Paul Schwager. But Schwager is clearly the poorest performer of this organization undergoing reorganization, regardless of his age.

True, Schwager introduced statistics to show that the average age of the employees retained was 35 and the average age of employees discharged was 45.7. But to prove his case, he would have to show that of the individuals fired, many had higher job performance ratings than those younger workers whom were asked to stay on in their employment capacities, and that the jobs the older workers fulfilled were similar to those of the younger employees who were retained. (EEOC Website, 2005) After all, Schwager's sales position at Shell was eliminated.

Were there perhaps a greater number of older workers in the positions and geographic areas targeted for this corporate realignment? Schwager would have to prove that there was a correlation between ages, years at the company (and potential to extract larger benefits and retirement packages) and the older employees' firings, a correlation that existed across positions, geography, and job ratings.

Additionally, the ADEA guidelines also state that an employer may reduce benefits based on age only if the cost of providing the reduced benefits to older workers is the same as the cost of providing benefits to younger workers. (EEOC Website, 2005) It is true that after the reorganization scheme, the company's pension retirement fund liabilities decreased significantly because of the reduction of older workers. But in this case, Sun Oil's Chairman of the Board in which the Chairman did not attempt to cut benefits, merely staff members.

Schwager's strongest case that age discrimination occurred is the letter by the Chairman stating that the reorganization plan would provide "a better age distribution of executive personnel." But even this statement is ambiguous -- it does not state that pension reduction is the reason for the reorganization, or that the goal of the reorganization was to actively reduce the number of older workers, and to reduce pension costs.

It states merely that the perhaps more youthful age distribution is a desirable if perhaps unintentional result of the reorganization, and even in the actual statement youth is not specified. Scenario 2 BPD Discrimination Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a mental illness. It is not a disability, like the learning disability dyslexia. An accommodation-friendly learning disability such as dyslexia can be accommodated in the schools and in many occupations with supplementary material to ameliorate this reading brain disorder. But BPD is a personality disorder like antisocial, histrionic, or avoidant personality disorders.

An individual with a disability according to theAmericans with Disability Act (ADA) is a person "who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment.

Major life activities are activities that an average person can perform with little or no difficulty such as walking, breathing, seeing, hearing, speaking, learning, and working." (EEOC Website, 2005) But most mental illnesses, even while they may have a genetic component function -- along with other genetically correlated mental ailments such as drug additiction.