Discrimination Part 4
Introduction
The age of employees is one of the considerations of a company for employment. Aside from the abilities and educational attainment of an employee, age serves as a good basis for the productivity of an individual, for theoretically, young employees can do much more compared to older ones. Similarly, age can also a basis for discrimination, as some employers make it an excuse to assign older employees to jobs due to a longer stay in the service, than younger employees qualified for the position. This stereotypical perception concerning age becomes one of the bases for employers to make adverse decisions in a company. With this, it is relevant to evaluate the rights of employees in relation to age.
Age-Related Discrimination Case
One specific case to describe age-related discrimination is the case of Paul Jones against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. Jones is a former long-time, salaried employee of Goodyear and is over the age of forty, and his appeal stems from an employee performance review system that the company implemented in 2001. It has been reported that under the new system, a letter grade of A (excels), B (competes well), or C (requires improvement) is assigned to each employee reviewed, with a stated goal of ten percent of the subject workforce receiving “A” s, eighty percent receiving “B” s, and ten percent receiving “C” s (“Jones v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.” 2004). According to Jones, the company was using the system to discriminate the employees because of their age and that they had suffered damages as a result. Moreover, Jones claims that he had always received good annual performance reviews before using the system in 2001, before receiving a “C” rating. He believes that this is part of Goodyear’s plan to discriminate against older employees. In addition, the company offered him to accept a separation package or be placed on a sixty-day improvement plan, which he did not agree to sign. As a result, Goodyear placed him on a sixty-day improvement plan, and if at the end of the period his performance would not improve, he will be terminated, which the company had done (“Jones v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.” 2004).
Under the Federal Law
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Laws include the Age Discrimination in Employment Law of 1967 or ADEA, which protects individuals or employees who are 40 years of age or older ( 2002). Furthermore, this law makes it prohibited for a company to refuse to hire, or to terminate any individual at least 40 years of age or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, due to the employee’s age. This law also prevents employers from taking unfavorable actions against older employees based on stereotypes of what older employees are like. Thus, it becomes a violation to act on the assumption that an older employee would not fit into a workplace, would be slow to learn new skills or to understand the projects being developed, would not accept salaries at the level that characterize those of entry-level positions, or would not like the pace of the workplace, because of his or her age (2001).
The case of Jones and his colleagues is a clear violation of the workplace rights of employees in a company. An employee must not be discriminated due to his age and performance. In the case of Jones, he and some of his colleagues were discriminated and violated by giving them inappropriate marks based on new systems evaluation, for being over forty years old. Being over forty years old does not mean an employee is already incompetent and incapable of producing valuable work. This does not also mean they cannot be assigned difficult and challenging tasks in a company. More often than not, these employees have already been exposed to different jobs, which could somehow help them perform better than other employees, given their good attitude towards work. The actions of Goodyear towards their employees clearly demonstrate their intention of trying to eliminate older employees for the basis of productivity. As such, the legal action done by Jones and his other colleagues are justified by the fact that the company violates their rights and privileges.
Evidently, this law has been violated in the case. According to the Age Discrimination in Employment Law of 1967, employers must provide their workers even with the age of over 40 years, the rights and the privileges in the company. Most companies perceive their employees who are already in their 40s as slow and unproductive, but the law does not tolerate this stereotype description and perception. This case and other age-related discrimination cases must be given attention, for companies might continue to discriminate their employees because of adopting new systems evaluation measures. It is apparent that employers want what is best for their companies, to the point of sacrificing many individuals for the betterment of the company. However, this reality must not make them possess the right to violate the workplace rights of their employees. Instead, employers must become the pioneers of protecting these rights for a much more advancement and improvement of their company, for without their employees, the company would just be useless and unproductive.
Conclusion
Employees and workers have several rights that they can avail and use, and thus must be protected and upheld by their employers. Discrimination due to age must not be tolerated in a company, as being based by the stereotypical perception of many employers regarding older workers. Each individual in a company has the opportunity to excel and make use of his or her talents and skills to contribute to the productivity of the company. Age must not be a hindrance to that contribution, and the company must give each worker the freedom to express his or her ideas. The issue of age should not lead employers to entertain second thoughts on providing equality and justice in the company.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment