Employment Search Information

According to age discrimination laws, an employer is not allowed to exchange an older employee for an employee of a younger age, or for an employee of the same age. This means that is an employer wants to hire in “new blood” to replace the “old blood” around the office, in order to get some new ideas, they cannot fire a worker over forty for someone who is twenty-two or for someone who is forty. This is deemed age discrimination.

However, employers can replace a worker over forty years old if the employer wants to replace the employee with a younger employee who has less experience and will therefore draw a smaller salary. This is no age discrimination because the reasons are financial. But if the fired employee can prove that they were let go not because of their salary requirements but because of their age, then they have a legitimate age discrimination case.

In the state of California, it was recently found that police officers who had been working for a short amount of time and had little experience on the job were given higher pay raises that those officers who had significant seniority, much more experience, but were over the age of forty.  According the Federal Law Title VII, this is age discrimination.  But it was not considered disparate treatment; rather, it was considered disparate impact because the discrimination was the result of police department policy rather than direct, intentional discrimination.

This is important for all employers.  Disparate impact, since it is not done with malice, is not as harmful as disparate treatment, but it is still very serious.  When an employer is thinking of changing company policies, it is imperative that they check that the policies follow both state and federal employment law.