Discrimination at the Lumber Yard Facts: A Term Paper

Discrimination at the Lumber Yard

Facts:

A job that entails the act of heavy physical lifting, by virtue of its very nature as well as its advertised job description is publicized in the 'help wanted' section of the local paper. Few, if any, other physical or educational qualifications are needed for the job. A man of forty-five who is visibly out of shape applies for the laboring position. During the initial employment interview, the man advised of his lack of physical qualifications and fitness for the occupation because of his age and apparently poor constitution, which could make his work at the job impossible at worst and at best a continuous danger to himself and to others. Thus, the man is directed to a potential position in customer service at the company, if only he strives makes his appearance more professional for that initial interview.

Solution:

While it is reasonable to infer that age could be an obstacle to performing heavy labor, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are forty years of age or older, as is the candidate for this occupation, from employment discrimination based on age. The EEOC, or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, of the U.S. Federal Government enforces this prohibition. (EEOC Web page, 2005) The individual in question, as a member of the over-age forty protected class is thus protected against age-related discrimination by the ADEA and the EEOC. He clearly has a legal right to try to prove that discrimination in the workplace took place. However, the company should do all that it can to strive to prevent such legal action, and intervene through mediation before the case comes to court, incurring expenses both upon the company and upon the individual.

According to the law, the legislation and legal proceedings regarding discrimination are more or less the same whether the discrimination is on the basis of age, race, sex, national origin, or anything else that is illegal to base employment upon. The employee must show that he suffered an "adverse employment action," an action defined legally as "anything the employer does which affects the employee's job and is not positive in its intent, which, "can be just about anything relating to someone's job" including most terms or conditions of employment. Whether or not a person is hired is also considered a term or condition of employment. (Greenberg, 2005)

The employee has to present some evidence of direct discrimination or disparate impact discrimination. In the former case, qualified individuals are barred from a prospective job, simply because they belong to a certain category, such as age, gender, or race -- which incidentally, a woman could allege, given the gender-based nature of the first advertisement, thus underlining the need for a change in future employment wording for the company, as well as the benefits of an out-of-court settlement in negotiating this particular suit. However, in this case of discrimination the latter disparate impact question is more in doubt.…