This paper examines the prevalence of age discrimination in the workplace, with a particular focus on the finance industry. Drawing on empirical research, it analyzes how the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and its enforcement by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have — and have not — changed hiring and employment practices across industries. The paper contrasts industries where older workers face systematic bias, such as finance and IT, with those that value experienced employees, such as manufacturing and government. Company culture is identified as a central factor shaping how age discrimination manifests in practice.
The issue of age discrimination is one that continues to grow in prominence across industries as a globally aging workforce confronts the stigma of age in many sectors worldwide (McMahan & Sturz, 2006). Despite the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) having been passed to protect applicants, employees, and prospects who are 40 years old or older, there is abundant evidence that age discrimination is regularly practiced (Posthuma & Campion, 2009). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces the ADEA and investigates cases involving compensation, hiring, firing, and conditions of employment as they relate to age. Many empirical studies have been completed that provide insights into which industries experience the most — and least — age discrimination (Bibby, 2008) as a result of the ADEA's passage. The intent of this paper is to analyze how pervasive age discrimination is in the finance industry specifically, and to illustrate how company values and cultures dramatically impact its prevalence within a given organization.
In analyzing the impact of age discrimination by industry, researchers have found that older employees are more valued and are not discharged due to age alone in government and manufacturing industries (Quan, Dattero, & Galup, 2008). In contrast, finance and IT do differentiate in their hiring practices, favoring younger, less expensive, and — according to one study — more efficient workers (Crampton & Hodge, 2007) over those beyond the age of 40 (Quan, Dattero, & Galup, 2008). Finance companies including AIG Insurance, Experian, Goldman Sachs, and many others are known for discriminating on the basis of age over qualifications (Posthuma & Campion, 2009).
The IT industry has long maintained a bias toward younger workers due to their more recent acquisition of new technology skills and their mastery of emerging tools. This bias has been the subject of research quantifying how stark the practice of age discrimination in technology sectors can be (Quan, Dattero, & Galup, 2008). Experian, which combines IT for managing credit analysis and reporting with a strong finance focus, is particularly known for its internal cultural bias of choosing younger workers over older ones. One market research manager in her 40s noted that she excelled in a phone interview only to be turned away after interviewing in person (Posthuma & Campion, 2009). Experian also reportedly seeks to move aging employees out of their roles — either into other divisions or out of the company altogether.
This pattern reflects a broader tendency in both finance and IT to view older workers as liabilities rather than assets, despite the depth of experience and institutional knowledge they often bring. Research on age and workplace performance has repeatedly challenged the assumption that younger workers are inherently more productive, yet company cultures in these sectors have been slow to change.
"Manufacturing and government value older workers"
Age discrimination is a reality that every worker over 40 faces in the United States and globally. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) is enforced by the EEOC, yet it has not succeeded in transforming the cultures of industries that favor younger over older workers for a variety of reasons. Finance and IT industries frequently discriminate on the basis of age, while manufacturing and government industries generally do not (Quan, Dattero, & Galup, 2008). Ultimately, company values and internal culture remain the most decisive factors in determining whether age discrimination is practiced, regardless of the legal protections in place.
Bibby, C. (2008). Should I stay or should I leave? Perceptions of age discrimination, organizational justice, and employee attitudes on intentions to leave. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 13(2), 63–86.
Crampton, S. M., & Hodge, J. W. (2007). Age discrimination and downsizing. The Business Review, Cambridge, 7(1), 341–347.
McMahan, S., & Sturz, D. (2006). Implications for an aging workforce. Journal of Education for Business, 82(1), 50–55.
Posthuma, R., & Campion, M. (2009). Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. Journal of Management, 35(1), 158–188.
Quan, J., Dattero, R., & Galup, S. (2008). An explorative study of age discrimination in IT wages. Information Resources Management Journal, 21(3), 24–38.
You’re 82% 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.