So you weren’t hired for the job and suspect age discrimination. But how do you prove it? Here are three ways you can prove you weren’t hired due to age discrimination:
Direct evidence: The interviewer made comments about your age indicating bias. Maybe they asked, “Aren’t you getting close to retirement?” or “How much longer do you plan to work?” Or your age wasn’t disclosed in your resume but when they see you they ask, “How old are you?” or “What year did you graduate?” Or maybe they said something really dumb like what EEOC says happened at Seasons 52: "Unsuccessful applicants across the nation were given varying explanations for their failure to be hired, including 'too experienced,' the restaurant's desire for a youthful image, looking for 'fresh' employees and telling applicants that Seasons 52 'wasn't looking for old white guys.'' That stuff cost Seasons 52 $2.8 million. While direct evidence is rare, it’s great stuff.
Disparate treatment: You are clearly the best qualified candidate. The ad calls for a Master’s Degree in Finance and you have a Doctorate in Finance. The person hired has a B.A. in Psychology. If you can prove that you were the more qualified candidate and that the person who was hired was younger, then you have what’s called a prima facie case of age discrimination. It would be up to the employer to prove that they had a legitimate reason other than age. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t prove there was another reason besides age discrimination, but it’s certainly enough to talk to a lawyer about.
Disparate impact: Even if you don’t have evidence that the employer intended to discriminate against you based on age, there could be hiring requirements that have a disparate impact on older employees and that don’t have a real relationship to the job. For instance, if you’re applying for a legal secretary position, a requirement that you have 20-20 vision without glasses or be able to run a mile would have a disparate impact on older employees (and the disabled, but I won’t get into that). The requirement wouldn’t be justifiable by any business necessity. However, if the requirement is that you be able to type 60 words a minute, that could be a legitimate job prerequisite.
If you can prove any of these three things, then it’s time to either file a charge of discrimination with EEOC (yes, you can do this unrepresented, just like you can file a lawsuit pro se or do surgery on yourself if you want), which is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit for age discrimination or, better yet, to contact an employee-side employment lawyer in your state about your rights. I'd suggest filing even if you live in one of the six states covered by these terrible decisions, just in case the Supreme Court decides otherwise. You can also check out your state law and file with your state agency if your state law covers applicants.
Direct evidence: The interviewer made comments about your age indicating bias. Maybe they asked, “Aren’t you getting close to retirement?” or “How much longer do you plan to work?” Or your age wasn’t disclosed in your resume but when they see you they ask, “How old are you?” or “What year did you graduate?” Or maybe they said something really dumb like what EEOC says happened at Seasons 52: "Unsuccessful applicants across the nation were given varying explanations for their failure to be hired, including 'too experienced,' the restaurant's desire for a youthful image, looking for 'fresh' employees and telling applicants that Seasons 52 'wasn't looking for old white guys.'' That stuff cost Seasons 52 $2.8 million. While direct evidence is rare, it’s great stuff.
Disparate treatment: You are clearly the best qualified candidate. The ad calls for a Master’s Degree in Finance and you have a Doctorate in Finance. The person hired has a B.A. in Psychology. If you can prove that you were the more qualified candidate and that the person who was hired was younger, then you have what’s called a prima facie case of age discrimination. It would be up to the employer to prove that they had a legitimate reason other than age. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t prove there was another reason besides age discrimination, but it’s certainly enough to talk to a lawyer about.
Disparate impact: Even if you don’t have evidence that the employer intended to discriminate against you based on age, there could be hiring requirements that have a disparate impact on older employees and that don’t have a real relationship to the job. For instance, if you’re applying for a legal secretary position, a requirement that you have 20-20 vision without glasses or be able to run a mile would have a disparate impact on older employees (and the disabled, but I won’t get into that). The requirement wouldn’t be justifiable by any business necessity. However, if the requirement is that you be able to type 60 words a minute, that could be a legitimate job prerequisite.
If you can prove any of these three things, then it’s time to either file a charge of discrimination with EEOC (yes, you can do this unrepresented, just like you can file a lawsuit pro se or do surgery on yourself if you want), which is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit for age discrimination or, better yet, to contact an employee-side employment lawyer in your state about your rights. I'd suggest filing even if you live in one of the six states covered by these terrible decisions, just in case the Supreme Court decides otherwise. You can also check out your state law and file with your state agency if your state law covers applicants.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I appreciate your comments and general questions but this isn't the place to ask confidential legal questions. If you need an employee-side employment lawyer, try http://exchange.nela.org/findalawyer to locate one in your state.