Categories
Recent Posts
- Meaningful Harassment Training
- Put it in Writting
- Get A Receipt: How to stop employee misappropriation
- Focus on the Wins
- HALLOWEEN EDITION: CUES TO CALL A LAWYER
Archives
- December 2023
- October 2023
- May 2023
- February 2023
- October 2022
- August 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- January 2022
- June 2021
- May 2021
- December 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- May 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- December 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- September 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- September 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- January 2017
- October 2016
- September 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- August 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- November 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- October 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
Navigating Age Discrimination Claims
Posted on April 16, 2019 in Compliance, Consulting
Age discrimination occupied my thoughts recently since turning 50 last month. I remember one of the first cases I worked on with my mentor in the practice of law. Man in his mid-40s claimed age discrimination against his Fortune 100 employer. I still recall my boss’s words: “This can’t be age discrimination, I’m older than him.” After 25 years of practicing law – odd to think now half my life – I understand why age discrimination claims are so difficult to defend and can offer my thoughts on how to avoid these challenging situations.
1. Change comes slowly
Most age discrimination claims are filed by long-term employees, and by the nature of having worked somewhere a long time, the employee typically has little (or no) documented disciplinary action. A new manager enters the picture. He wants quick results and sees himself as a change agent. He blames prior supervisors for never challenging the alleged inadequacies of the older worker. But the failure of no prior discipline means change comes slowly. Indeed, the employer and new boss must proceed with an attitude towards helping the employee succeed and not – as we too often hear – a campaign to paper the file.
2. Never encourage retirement
I often hear employers mistakenly speak of long-term employees who they want to put on a retirement plan. Or, people comment about establishing a company retirement age. However, federal and state law prohibits any form of mandatory retirement, except in the context of certain very well-defined public-sector jobs (e.g., firefighter). Employers should never talk with employees about “how long they plan to work” or “how many years do you think you still have in you.” Simply stated, an employee’s work-life longevity should not enter businesses plans unless the employee volunteers that information. A source of confusion stems from professional service firms set up as partnerships. Partners are not “employees”, and accordingly not covered by the Age Discrimination inml Employment Act (“ADEA”). Thus, a law firm can mandate that its partners (not employees) retire from partnership at a certain age. However, even this proposition has been challenged. In 2007, the EEOC entered a consent decree with the international firm of Sidley Austin that resulted in a $27.5 million payment to 32 firm partners allegedly forced to retire. See the EEOC Press Release: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-5-07.cfm.
3. Longevity = Severance
Most severance plans are structured with a lock-step progression and frequently capped out. These plans typical require execution of a release of claims in exchange for a payment. But a lock-step methodology might spend money unwisely. Severance plans should instead provide modest payouts for short tenured employees and weigh payouts more heavily towards long tenured (often older) employees. Older workers worry more about their next job and need more severance to be enticed to accept a release of claims.