Age Discrimination in Employment: Lumber Yard Case Study
This case study examines a workplace discrimination scenario in which a 45-year-old man is denied a heavy labor position at a lumber yard and redirected to customer service based on his age and appearance. Applying the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement guidelines, the paper evaluates whether the employer's actions constitute direct discrimination or disparate impact discrimination. It also proposes practical solutions — including independent physical fitness testing and revised hiring language — to protect both the employee's legal rights and the employer's future liability.
- Case Facts: Older applicant denied labor job, redirected
- Legal Framework: ADEA and EEOC Protections: ADEA and EEOC protect workers over forty
- Direct Discrimination and Disparate Impact: Two legal doctrines applied to the case
- Proposed Solution and Why It Would Work: Independent fitness test protects employer and employee
- Conclusion: Fair process resolves discrimination claims
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds the analysis in specific statutory authority — the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 — and connects it directly to the facts of the case, demonstrating applied legal reasoning rather than abstract summarization.
- It introduces and distinguishes two distinct legal doctrines (direct discrimination and disparate impact), illustrating each with a concrete example (the fire department scenario) before applying them to the lumber yard situation.
- The paper moves logically from problem identification to legal analysis to actionable recommendations, giving the case study a practical, solutions-oriented conclusion.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates case-based legal analysis: it takes a hypothetical fact pattern, identifies the applicable statutory protections, applies doctrinal categories (direct vs. disparate impact discrimination), and argues toward a resolution. This mirrors the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) structure common in legal and business ethics writing, making it a useful model for undergraduate law or business courses.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a fact summary, followed by a solution section that introduces the relevant law (ADEA/EEOC), explains legal standards for proving discrimination, and applies them to the case. A dedicated "Reasons the Solution Would Work" section defends the proposed physical fitness testing approach. The conclusion briefly ties together the employee's rights and the employer's obligations. The structure is clear and reader-friendly at the undergraduate level.
Case Facts
A job requiring heavy physical lifting is advertised in the "help wanted" section of a local newspaper. Beyond the physical demands of the role, few other qualifications — physical or educational — are listed. A 45-year-old man who is visibly out of shape applies for the position. During his initial interview, he is told that his age and apparent physical condition make him unqualified for the labor role, as his fitness level could make the work impossible at worst and a continuous danger to himself and others at best. He is then redirected to a potential position in customer service, but only if he makes his appearance more professional before a follow-up interview.
Works Cited
EEOC. (2005). "Age Discrimination." Government Website. Retrieved July 19, 2004, from http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/agedisc.htm
Greenberg, David. (2005). "Proving Discrimination in the Workplace." Discrimination Attorney. Retrieved July 19, 2004, from http://discriminationattorney.com/proving.shtml
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.