This paper examines the many forms of discrimination faced by older adults in contemporary American society. Drawing on peer-reviewed literature, it explores age bias in the workplace — including the limited effectiveness of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 — as well as negative stereotypes that harm older people's self-image and motivation. The paper also addresses ageism in the justice system, cross-cultural attitudes toward aging, the historical resilience of older African Americans in the face of racism, and the systematic exclusion of elderly participants from clinical drug trials. Together, these sources paint a comprehensive picture of widespread ageism and offer potential remedies for reducing discrimination against older people.
The paper demonstrates effective synthesis of multiple peer-reviewed sources around a unifying thesis. Rather than summarizing each source in isolation, the author weaves them together to build a cumulative, multi-domain argument. Transitional framing between sections — noting how each new domain extends the central claim — shows how to use a literature-review structure to argue persuasively rather than merely describe.
The paper opens with a definition and thesis-framing introduction, then moves thematically through discrete domains: workplace discrimination and the ADEA, technology and older workers, the justice system, stereotype research, cross-cultural attitudes, African American historical experience, clinical trial exclusion, and a concluding call to action. Each section introduces a new source or cluster of sources, extracts key evidence, and connects it back to the overarching argument about pervasive elder discrimination.
"Age discrimination occurs when a decision is made on the basis of a person's age. In the workplace these are most often decisions about recruitment, promotion, and dismissal… in societies that celebrate youthfulness above almost all else, it can be very difficult for even highly qualified professionals to find new positions after the age of 50. For male senior executives, the fear of age discrimination has led to an increasing demand for cosmetic surgery, but for most older workers there appears little they can do to resist being swept aside in favor of young replacements…" (Tan, 2009).
Aging brings with it physical problems, emotional issues, and bias and discrimination, as many older people have discovered — and will discover. This paper brings to light, through the literature, many of the kinds of discrimination that older people are subjected to as they move into life's so-called "golden years." Indeed, because of the discrimination and negative stereotypes that older people face, their golden years are becoming tarnished. This paper offers evidence to support those assertions, and in some cases the authors of the peer-reviewed articles cited here offer remedies and suggestions for putting an end to prejudice against older people.
The millions of older adults who once thought retirement would be a joyous and wonderful experience — after years of hard work, raising a family, and saving their earnings — are finding that retirement is not an affordable option. Yet, some 42 years after the U.S. Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, age discrimination in the workplace persists. While senior citizens need to continue working to avoid poverty, they are simultaneously being discriminated against in the process.
Authors Jessica Z. Rothenberg and Daniel S. Gardner have written a peer-reviewed article examining the implications of this discrimination and offering potential solutions to end the bias. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) conducted a study in 2009, asking 767 adults aged 45 and older whether they planned to postpone their retirement; 22% said yes. Among those between 55 and 64, 27% said they would keep working well into typical retirement age (Rothenberg, 2011, p. 10).
Given the terrible condition of the economy at that time — including a depressed housing market, bleak credit opportunities, significant hits to Americans' pensions, widespread foreclosures, and mass layoffs — it is clear that more and more older people would need to work simply to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.
Yet precisely when older people most need protection from age bias in the workplace, the legislation designed to help them has not been effective. The ADEA was authored and signed into law to "promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age." It was also designed to "prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment" and to help employers and employees "find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment" (Rothenberg, p. 10). That said, the ADEA has not fulfilled its purpose. To support this claim, Rothenberg points to the fact that an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 reports of age-based discrimination are filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) annually; in 2008, there were 24,500 such reports — "an all-time high" (Rothenberg, p. 10).
Clearly, employers are resisting hiring older people. Rothenberg points to a meta-analysis by Kite, Stockdale, Whitley Jr., and Johnson that documents widespread bias against older people per se. This bias is rooted in negative attitudes toward "elders' competence, attractiveness, and behavioral intentions" (Rothenberg, p. 11). There are also what Rothenberg calls "pernicious stereotypes" that haunt older workers: the older worker is typically seen as "senile, slow, unproductive, frail, and unable to 'learn new tricks,'" and those unfair stereotypes are described as "widespread and intractable" (Rothenberg, p. 11). Many employers believe older workers are "difficult to train, resistant to change, and less flexible and adaptable" than younger workers (Rothenberg, p. 11).
Compounding the problem for older workers, the U.S. Supreme Court has generally not supported the ADEA on their behalf, often siding with employers instead. In Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi (2005), the Justices ruled against an older worker who claimed he had been discriminated against because of his age. Justice Stevens, writing for the Court, explained that "certain employment criteria that are routinely used may be reasonable despite their adverse impact on older workers as a group" (Rothenberg, p. 21). Rothenberg and Gardner argue that employers are also discouraged from hiring older workers because of the "high costs" that "increase as workers grow older." The authors suggest that a "comprehensive single-payer health care system" that removed healthcare costs from employers' shoulders would reduce some of the financial bias against hiring older people. However, when the Obama Administration attempted to pass legislation with a single-payer component, Congress resisted.
Rothenberg and Gardner further recommend new legislation to protect older people who want and need to work, and urge the EEOC to "develop mechanisms to better monitor business employment practices" (Rothenberg, p. 24).
Author Neil Charness acknowledges that there are some legitimate reasons why employers may be hesitant to hire older people, particularly in workplaces where sophisticated and frequently updated technology is in use. "For older workers, technology has both advantages and drawbacks," Charness explains (Charness, 2006, p. 26). On the positive side, automation has greatly reduced the need for "demanding physical labor," which benefits older people with reduced physical capacity. Additionally, the development of sensor systems means workers no longer need to rely solely on their own visual, aural, and other senses, which also tend to diminish with age (Charness, p. 26). On the negative side, new technologies demand "significant instruction and training," posing serious challenges for older workers.
Linking older workers with current and future technologies is described as a "central concern" of the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). The effective use of highly advanced technological systems depends largely on "the extent to which the system demands can be met by the user's capabilities" (Charness, p. 27). Given the "normative" changes associated with the aging process — including reductions in sensory, perceptual, psychomotor, and cognitive capabilities — older workers are clearly at a disadvantage "relative to their younger counterparts" (Charness, p. 27).
The question then becomes: is it fair for an employer to hire an alert twenty-something job candidate with extensive experience in digital technologies and turn down the application of a 55-year-old with vast management experience but limited familiarity with new technologies? For many employers, the answer would be an unequivocal "yes," but for the older applicant who believes he is a quick learner, there may be good reason to feel he was discriminated against based on his age.
There can be no doubt that discrimination against older Americans is alive and well, and this bias is not limited to employment, the legal system, or any single domain of life. For those idealists who believe that such discrimination can be eradicated entirely, there is nothing wrong with holding on to that hope. However, a realistic assessment of the literature and of life in America — which is currently experiencing a massive expansion of the senior population, particularly among baby boomers — reveals that no perfect society exists, and that prejudice and bias against those who are growing old will likely continue.
This does not mean that discrimination against older people must simply be accepted. Quite the contrary. Concerned, fair-minded citizens of all ages must fight against discrimination and actively support the laws designed to protect older people from being treated unfairly. As the research reviewed here makes clear, ageism is pervasive, multi-dimensional, and deeply embedded in American culture and institutions — and addressing it demands sustained effort across every sector of society.
You’re 40% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 4 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.