This paper analyzes two employment discrimination scenarios through the lens of federal anti-discrimination law. The first scenario examines whether a laid-off sales employee can successfully argue age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), weighing statistical evidence against performance-based justifications for the termination. The second scenario considers whether borderline personality disorder (BPD) qualifies as a protected disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), distinguishing personality disorders from learning disabilities and evaluating an employer's right to select candidates based on job-relevant personal characteristics. Both scenarios draw on EEOC guidelines to assess the strength and limits of each potential claim.
Federal anti-discrimination statutes define the boundaries of lawful employment decisions in the United States. Two key laws — the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) — establish protections that employers must observe when hiring, retaining, or terminating employees. The following scenarios apply both statutes to specific employment situations, assessing the strength of potential discrimination claims under each.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits age discrimination in the hiring and firing of employees. The Act specifically states that an age limit on any occupation may only be imposed in the rare circumstance where age has been proven to be a bona fide occupational qualification — a standard that does not apply to Paul Schwager's situation. However, Schwager is clearly the poorest performer in this organization undergoing reorganization, regardless of his age.
It is true that Schwager introduced statistics showing that the average age of employees retained was 35 and the average age of employees discharged was 45.7. But to prove his case, he would need to demonstrate that many of the individuals fired had higher job performance ratings than the younger workers who were asked to stay, and that the roles the older workers filled were similar to those of the younger employees who were retained (EEOC, 2005).
After all, Schwager's sales position at Shell was eliminated entirely. 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 a correlation between age, years of service — and the potential to draw larger benefits and retirement packages — and the terminations of older employees. That correlation would need to hold across positions, geographic locations, and performance ratings.
The ADEA also specifies that an employer may reduce benefits based on age only if the cost of providing reduced benefits to older workers equals the cost of providing benefits to younger workers (EEOC, 2005). It is true that after the reorganization, the company's pension retirement fund liabilities decreased significantly because of the reduction in older workers. However, in this case the Chairman of the Board did not attempt to cut benefits — only to reduce staff.
Schwager's strongest argument that age discrimination occurred rests on a letter from the Chairman stating that the reorganization plan would provide "a better age distribution of executive personnel." Even this statement, however, is ambiguous. It does not assert that pension reduction was the reason for the reorganization, nor that the goal was to actively reduce the number of older workers in order to lower pension costs. It states merely that a more balanced — and perhaps more youthful — age distribution is a desirable, if possibly unintentional, result of the reorganization. Even within the statement itself, youth is never explicitly mentioned as the objective.
"Whether BPD qualifies as ADA-protected disability"
In both scenarios, the available evidence falls short of meeting the legal threshold required for a successful discrimination claim under federal law. In Schwager's case, statistical age disparities alone are insufficient without evidence of a performance-based correlation tied specifically to age-related cost savings. In the BPD scenario, the disorder's classification as a personality condition rather than a qualifying disability under the ADA places it outside the Act's core protections, leaving the employer's decision on legally defensible ground. Both cases illustrate how federal anti-discrimination law draws careful distinctions between protected characteristics and legitimate, job-related employment criteria. For a broader overview of these legal protections, the EEOC's employee rights resources provide authoritative guidance.
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.