Articles Posted in Age Discrimination

Murphy School District No. 21 used an early retirement incentive plan which granted greater economic benefits to employees based upon their younger age, in violation of the Age Discrimination laws. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC“) this plan favored younger teachers and was therefore a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, which became effective in 1992, amended ADEA, to outlaw early retirement incentive plans which discriminated on the basis of age. The school district’s early retirement incentive plan then became facially discriminatory.

EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill said, “Early retirement incentive plans which are facially discriminatory need to be changed. Discrimination on the basis of age is simply illegal. People in their 60’s should not be penalized merely because they want to continue working.”

Bobby Dodd Institute, Inc. pays $40,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit. The discrimination lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC“). According to published accounts, two women, each over 70 years of age, applied for a shared mail clerk position and were extended job offers by the company. The problem for the company occurred when their ages were revealed to the company’s CEO, and the job offers were revoked one day before their scheduled start date.

To make things worse, shortly after preventing the older applicants from starting work, the company hired two younger individuals to fill the position. That type of evidence is clear and convincing that age discrimination was occurring. Under the law, a company cannot make a hiring decision based on someones age. In this case, it was clear the company did not wish to hire the older women because of their age.

“The workforce includes many people who suffer discrimination because of their age, and the EEOC is committed to debunking discriminatory stereotypes that affect older workers.” said EEOC attorney Robert Dawkins

Ruby Tuesday, Inc. pays $575,000to settle a class age discrimination lawsuit. The discrimination lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC“). In cases like this the EEOC will always try to settle the case before letting a jury decide. The EEOC often can bring great pressure on the other side to settle. According to published accounts, Ruby Tuesday engaged in a pattern or practice of age discrimination against job applicants who were 40 years of age or older.

In addition Ruby Tuesday also failed to preserve employment records, including employment applications, as required by the ADEA and EEOC regulations. Many times employers don’t keep accurate records in an attempt to stall cases. Employment records are vital in a cases where age, gender or race are at issue. Despite their best efforts to impede the investigation, the EEOC was able to get to the bottom of what happened.

“This case demonstrates the agency’s ongoing commitment to challenge discriminatory barriers to hiring.” said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez

Kanbar Property Management LLC (“KPM”), pays $140,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC“) after initial settlement talks failed. According to published accounts the company fired Toni Strength because of her age, 53. And not only was she fired by she was replaced by a 23-year-old worker. Strength was one of KPM’s long-time veteran property managers who had been with KPM and its predecessor property management companies for over 18 years. But it seems that wasn’t long enough and that didn’t mean much to KPM.

KPM notified Strength that she was being terminated on Oct. 29, 2010, because her position was being eliminated. As it turned out that was a lie. Strength was in fact deliberately replaced with younger women The EEOC said these actions were taken because KPM’s former CEO, Suhki Ghuman, wanted “younger and prettier” property managers to meet with potential tenants and entertain potential tenants after regular work hours, and characterized Strength as “too old and ugly.” Wow this guy was a real piece of work.

“This former CEO’s ageist and sexist marketing strategy – the use of young attractive women to market commercial lease space downtown – is obnoxious and insulting enough, but firing older employees to make room for younger ones is clearly unlawful.” said EEOC attorney Jeff Lee

Kanbar Property Management LLC (“KPM”) pays $140,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit. The discrimination lawsuit was first filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC“). The EEOC alleged KPM violated federal law by firing Toni Strength because of her age, 53, and favoring younger people to replace her. Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), which prohibits basing employment decisions on a person’s age if he or she is over 40. This includes promotions, demotions, firings and making any hiring decision. In a world where technology is moving very fast, company’s believe they must look young and jettison older workers. This is not only illegal but it ends up costing companies valued employees. It is very hard to replace experience and knowledge. The company should take a hard look at the person who made this terrible decision and considering firing him.

According to published accounts, Toni Strength was one of KPM’s long-time veteran property managers who had been with KPM and its predecessor property management companies for over 17 years. KPM notified Strength, who was 53 at the time, that she was being terminated on Oct. 29, 2010, because her position was being eliminated. Many times companies use the excuse of downsizing or elimination of a position as a way to get rid of older employees and replace them with younger ones. In this case Strength was deliberately replaced with a younger women. In face the company placed a 23-year-old clerical employee in the property manager position. The EEOC alleged these actions were taken because KPM’s former CEO, Suhki Ghuman, wanted “younger and prettier” property managers to meet with potential tenants and entertain potential tenants after regular work hours, and characterized Strength as “too old and ugly.” Looks like the CEO thought he was running the Playboy lounge not a business. Who is he to say who is old and ugly looking. He sounds like a real piece of work and I can see why he is the former CEO an no longer working for the company.

What is an older worker suppose to do once she is fired after spending the best years of her working life at one company? It isn’t right for a company to treat an employee this way. I am glad the EEOC held the company to the standards of today and not let them act like this is 1950. I wonder if the CEO will think he is too old and ugly once he turns 50 and ask that he be replaced? Companies would be wise to read Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and follow it. Not only did this cost the company money but also it cost them in reputation. How many people over 40 are going to want to do business with this company in the future? A young CEO should remember that one day he will be old too. It is not enough for the company to pay a settlement amount. The company needs a shift in its’ attitude toward older workers. The company needs to see the value and how wise it is to keep good employees.

“This former CEO’s ageist and sexist marketing strategy – the use of young attractive women to market commercial lease space in downtown Tulsa – is obnoxious and insulting enough, but firing older employees to make room for younger ones is clearly unlawful,” said EEOC attorney Jeff Lee.