ADEA Case Law and State Mini-EEOC Employment Protections

Introduction

The following analysis examines two distinct areas of employment law: a federal appellate ruling in which an employer was found not guilty of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and a review of California's state-level labor enforcement agency and its protections for child workers in the entertainment industry.

Tatom v. Res-Care: ADEA Case Overview

In Linda Tatom v. Res-Care, Inc., No. 14-6125 (10th Cir., Jan. 24, 2015), the plaintiff Linda Tatom was an at-will employee of the Guthrie Job Corps Center (GJCC). After becoming involved in an altercation with a male trainee, she was permitted to go home for the day. Tatom refused to return to GJCC until the trainee was removed. She filed an incident report, but GJCC stated that the report did not indicate whether the offense constituted a Level I or Level II infraction, and the trainee was not removed (EmployerLinc, 2015).

Tatom was ultimately replaced by two instructors, ages 53 and 56, after she refused to return to work (EmployerLinc, 2015). She subsequently filed suit against GJCC alleging age discrimination. Tatom was 56 years old at the time, and while she did establish that she was a member of a protected class under the ADEA, the court ruled that the evidence did not support a finding that her termination was motivated by her age. GJCC argued that she was terminated after failing to report to work for eight consecutive days and that she had been given advance notice before her formal termination (EmployerLinc, 2015).

Why the Employer Prevailed Under the ADEA

To succeed on an ADEA claim, an employee must demonstrate "that the stated nondiscriminatory reason for the employer's actions is pretext for discriminatory intent" (EmployerLinc, 2015). Tatom was unable to meet this burden. Her employer convincingly argued that her refusal to report to work was the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination. Critically, the fact that she was replaced by employees who were themselves within the protected age group — ages 53 and 56 — significantly undermined any inference of age-based discrimination and further supported the employer's defense.

Conclusion

Within California, the dominance of the entertainment industry, which frequently employs child actors, has led to the development of special provisions governing minors' employment. Minors aged 15 days to 18 years who are employed in the entertainment industry must have a permit to work, and employers must obtain a permit to employ them; both permits are issued by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. These permits are also required for minors making phonographic recordings or who are employed as advertising or photographic models, and they are required even when the entertainment activity is noncommercial in nature ("Information on minors and employment," 2015).

These requirements exist to prevent children from being exploited through long hours, dangerous conditions, and insufficient oversight — circumstances more likely to arise in the entertainment industry than in a conventional retail establishment that is subject to routine inspection for other reasons. Employers in the entertainment industry are also subject to additional regulatory requirements, including completing an application to employ minors specifically for entertainment purposes and filing a workers' compensation insurance coverage form for employers who employ minors ("Information," 2015).

While some smaller employers may overlook these requirements, the scale and visibility of California's entertainment industry make it unlikely that major industry participants can avoid compliance. This regulatory framework illustrates how state child labor laws can exceed federal minimums in response to the specific characteristics of local industries.

These two areas of employment law demonstrate the layered nature of workplace protections in the United States. The Tatom v. Res-Care decision illustrates that an employer can successfully defend against an ADEA claim when legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for an adverse employment action are well-documented and supported by the facts — particularly when the replacement workers are themselves members of the protected class. Meanwhile, California's DLSE shows how state agencies can extend protections beyond federal law, tailoring regulations to address vulnerabilities unique to their jurisdictions, such as the employment of child performers in a major entertainment hub.

Linda Tatom v. Res-Care, Inc., No. 14-6125 (10th Cir. Jan. 24, 2015). Retrieved from EmployerLinc:

Information on minors and employment. (2015). California Department of Industrial Relations. Retrieved from: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/dlse-cl.htm