This audio is automatically generated. Please let us know if you have any comments.
Dive brief:
- Commercial electrical company Hatzel & Buehler will pay $500,000 to settle U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that a vice president at its New Jersey branch rejected several job applicants because of their age, the EEOC said in a statement press Friday
- According to the complaint a EEOC v. Hatzel & Buehler, Inc.dated June 2023, candidates applied for the positions of estimator and project manager, including two named candidates aged 65 and 58. EEOC alleged that, during a conversation with an outside recruiter working with the 65-year-old applicant, the executive said that applicant did not fit their “ideal age range” for work, from 30 to 45 years.
- The EEOC also claimed that the vice president failed to withhold job applicant and hiring records in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. As part of the settlement, the vice president will be barred from making final decisions about which candidates will be interviewed or hired for the affected positions, the EEOC said. Hatzel and Buehler he denied the allegations and any violation of the ADEA or Title VII.
Diving knowledge:
The case is one of several in which an entrepreneur alleged use of coded language became potential evidence in an age discrimination claim. In a 2023 example, the EEOC alleged that Exact Sciences discriminated against a 49-year-old applicant who claimed he was rejected because the company looked for “more junior” applicants.. The company settled with the EEOC for $90,000, but denied the commission’s allegations.
In early July, the EEOC entered into a settlement agreement with retailer Dollar General over the allegations older workers were harassed by the district directors and threatened with termination. A month earlier, Raytheon faced a class-action lawsuit alleging that the company’s job postings aimed at recent university graduates.
“Job applicants should be evaluated based on their qualifications, not their age,” Debra Lawrence, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Philadelphia office, said in the press release from the agency “The EEOC will continue to hold employers accountable for age-discriminatory hiring and hiring practices.”
The ADEA prohibits employment discrimination against people aged 40 and overeven when both the victim and the person inflicting discrimination are over 40 years old. The law applies to any term or condition of employment, according to the EEOC.
In addition, the ADEA requires employers to do so maintain all payroll records for a period of three years. The law also requires employers to keep on file any written employee benefit plan and seniority or merit system for the entire period the plan or system is in effect, as well as for at least one year after the termination of the plan or system.
Despite ADEA protections, however, Age discrimination remains a persistent problem versus US jobs. Congress has tried to strengthen age protections on several occasions, including last December when a bipartisan group in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the Law for the protection of older workers against discrimination. A separate effort supported by advocates including media personality Gretchen Carlson has sought to end mandatory arbitration for age discrimination claims.
