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.
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.
While it is reasonable to consider whether age might pose an obstacle to performing heavy labor, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are forty years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of the U.S. Federal Government enforces this prohibition (EEOC, 2005). Because the applicant in question belongs to the over-forty protected class, he is legally shielded against age-based discrimination under both the ADEA and EEOC authority. He clearly has the legal standing to attempt to prove that workplace discrimination occurred.
However, the company should do everything in its power to prevent such legal action and pursue mediation before the matter reaches court — both to limit its own expenses and to avoid prolonged proceedings for the individual involved.
According to the law, the legislative standards and legal proceedings governing discrimination are largely the same whether the discrimination is based on age, race, sex, national origin, or any other protected characteristic. The employee must show that he suffered an "adverse employment action," which is legally defined as anything the employer does that negatively affects the employee's job status — and this "can be just about anything relating to someone's job," including most terms or conditions of employment. Whether or not a person is hired is also considered a term or condition of employment (Greenberg, 2005).
The employee must present evidence of either direct discrimination or disparate impact discrimination. In cases of direct discrimination, qualified individuals are barred from a prospective job simply because they belong to a protected category — such as age, gender, or race. It is worth noting that a woman could raise a gender-based discrimination claim given the nature of the original job advertisement, which underscores the need for the company to revise its future employment wording and reinforces the value of reaching an out-of-court settlement in this instance.
The question of disparate impact discrimination is more nuanced. Consider fire departments that imposed strength requirements on job applicants: women were frequently unable to meet those requirements. "In some instances, the requirements were absolutely necessary to ensure the firefighters were qualified. But in many instances, the requirements were simply too high" — that is, they "were more than was necessary," and "qualified women were therefore being excluded unnecessarily" (Greenberg, 2005). This constitutes disparate impact discrimination under the law.
This does not mean the fire departments were intentionally trying to exclude women; the discriminatory effects of their policy were unintentional but still constituted disparate impact. "Because the policy wasn't sufficiently job-related (too much strength was required) there was discrimination in the workplace" (Greenberg, 2005). By analogy, the lumber yard must legally demonstrate that the level of physical strength the job demands genuinely exceeds the applicant's capacity, and that — even if its policies disproportionately affect older individuals — the physical requirement is a legitimate and necessary condition of employment.
One practical way to establish this for future hiring would be to retain an independent expert in kinesiology to evaluate the daily physical demands of different roles at the lumber yard and to design an objective fitness test. Such a test could be administered to the applicant in question and to all prospective employees going forward.
This approach would also protect the employer in the future. If any applicant — regardless of gender or age — could pass the independently designed fitness test, they would be hired. If younger men were more likely to pass the test, they could still be hired in greater numbers, because demonstrated physical fitness would be a documented and expert-verified condition of employment. This would provide a defensible basis against future legal allegations.
"Independent fitness test protects employer and employee"
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
You’re 78% 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.