The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 Paper Example

Name of the Article: Brainmass.com. (2018). [online] Available at: https://brainmass.com/law/labor-and-employment-law/age-discrimination-case-study-cable-fixers-599057 [Accessed 12 Nov. 2018].

It is evident that age discrimination by employers in the various workplace is great social problem surrounded by economic and social controversies. For the baby boomers attaining the age of 55 and above, the previous literature reveals substantial perceptions based on the attitudes of the society and employer in general. According to Mujtaba et al. (193), aging discrimination demonstrate a stereotypical across hiring and recruiting in their respective place of work causing a social problem for the aging workers. Recently conducted studies by (Mujtaba et al. (193) reveal that ageism in the working environment tends to relate to the evaluation and impression of capabilities. Significantly, complimentary out looked based on the worker's aging appearance rather than to the potential of the employee demonstrate covert discrimination. Notably, studies postulate that one of the prevalent issues facing old workers within their workplace is age discrimination. Markedly, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 is a law forbidding employment refinement based on age. This law covers all employees at least 40 years old and over, in furtherance, the employer should have a minimum of 20 workers to be covered by the ADEA law. This essay focuses on an Age Discrimination case study: Cable Fixers

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In the Age Discrimination case study: Cable Fixers, Gene Johnson was an employee at Cable Fixers for twenty-one years. However, he was terminated at the age of 69 years, and the company replaced him with a younger man who the company paid slightly lower salary than Gene. Notably, the statements given by the Cable Fixers manager is not noteworthy adequate for establishing age discrimination (Brainmass.com, 2018). The manager claims that the work productivity of Gene had gradually reduced compared to how he used to work before. In furtherance, the manager only alludes years of Gene's employment rather than his age. For this reason, this points a violation of ADEA 0f 1967 that was passed by the Congress with the aim of protecting workers who are at least 40 years and over from their own workplace discrimination based on age.

To act under ADEA, then the manager should provide evidence that the employer has attained a maximum age of 65 years. Secondly, the manager must also provide adequate proof that the work productivity of Gene has reduced than before. After proving these evidence, then the manager has the right to terminate employment offer. Otherwise, Gene can file a suitcase since this action reveals a different claim based on the ADEA. This is because a prima facie case usually needs the employer to provide grounds of qualification in performing the job and termination of the employment was a violation despite aged 40 years and above (Mujtaba et al. (193). The company can terminate a higher paid and old employee by making a replacement with a younger and lower paid employee. However, it is evident that ADEA of 1967 protects employees in the workplace that have a minimum of 40 years of age. This reveals that an employee aged below 40 years old such as 35 can be terminated and replacing him or her with a 23-year -old employee without violating the ADEA 0f 1967. However, at the moment an employee meets the required threshold age of 40 years and above, then the ADEA of 1967 protects him or her from age discrimination in the workplace by age.

Works Cited

Brainmass.com. (2018). [online] Available at: https://brainmass.com/law/labor-and-employment-law/age-discrimination-case-study-cable-fixers-599057 [Accessed 12 Nov. 2018].

Mujtaba, Bahaudin G., and Frank J. Cavico. "Corporate wellness programs: implementation challenges in the modern American workplace." International journal of health policy and management 1.3 (2013): 193.