Sufflok University Law Review and Statues for Age Discrimination

• Journal List
• HHS Writer Manuscripts
• PMC4154604

Res Aging. Author manuscript; bachelor in PMC 2014 Sep 4.

Published in concluding edited form as:

PMCID: PMC4154604

NIHMSID: NIHMS584641

International Comparing of Age Discrimination Laws

Joanna N. Lahey

Texas A&M University and NBER

Abstract

European age bigotry legislation is discussed in the context of the US Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and related state laws. United states law was originally introduced to protect productive older workers from age stereotypes, but more recently preventing historic period discrimination has go important as a means of keeping costs down on entitlement programs equally the population ages. Changes in enforcement, penalties, exemptions, length of time to file, and burden of proof have changed the effects of the laws over time. The ADEA has had both positive effects on currently employed older workers and negative furnishings on the hiring of older workers. Enforcement and publicity are offered equally possible explanations for the forcefulness of these positive and negative furnishings. Age bigotry legislation in Europe, indicated in the Framework Directive 2000/78, is driven by economical and political considerations. European legislation calls for less enforcement and more exemptions than the respective US cases which could lead to smaller furnishings on employment. However, pensions, disability, unemployment, and social security potentially have a stronger effect on social norms for retirement age than does anti-discrimination legislation.

Although the Us has had federal legislation outlawing employment discrimination based on age since the 1960s, many European countries have recently had their beginning experiences with age discrimination laws with the advent of the Framework Directive 2000/78/EC. This directive, put in place in 2000, required member countries to design their ain anti-discrimination laws by 2003, with an extension to 2006 allowed for age bigotry laws. As the baby boomer population ages, retired workers put stresses on national alimony systems beyond the earth. Given reductions in morbidity and mortality, a possible way to mitigate these stresses would be to raise the alimony ages for public pensions, in consequence decreasing the benefits from annuities, and encouraging workers to increase the length of their working lives. Yet, in gild to make these changes without decreasing the quality of life of these cohorts, employers must be willing to employ older workers.

One method to combat age discrimination in employment is to prohibit it through regulation. Although the goal of these age discrimination laws is to increase the employment of older workers, theoretically the furnishings of these laws are not as clear. When a worker becomes more than hard to remove, firms are less likely to take a chance on hiring that worker. Empirical work from the United states has already shown that protection laws can accept unintended effects (e.grand. Acemoglu and Angrist 2001, Deliere 2000, Lahey 2008). Viewing the new European laws within a framework developed for analyzing United states of america data can help guide EU policymakers and researchers as they attempt to grapple with ways to increment employment amid these groups.

Each country in the European union was able to create its own age discrimination law guided past the principles put along in the Framework Directive. Although similar in many ways, a diverse fix of these laws exists beyond the EU. The different aspects of these laws may result in different effects. Differences in enforcement, penalties, exemptions, time to file, and burden of proof influence the telescopic and forcefulness of these laws, as they have influenced the furnishings of age discrimination laws in the United States. Additionally, some aspects of these laws, such as the effect of prohibiting age-based employment advertisements or discouraging the use of nativity dates on resumes, could have a big bear on but have non been formally studied.

This paper introduces these new European Spousal relationship laws and provides a framework for thinking about how these laws affect employment outcomes for older workers based on research that has been done in the Us on the Age Discrimination in Employment Human action (ADEA).

US Discrimination Constabulary

History

In 1965, the US Department of Labor drafted a report on age discrimination in the economy that would become the basis for the 1967 federal Age Bigotry in Employment Act (ADEA). This study focused on how negative and incorrect stereotypes hurt older workers and hurt the economy by keeping productive older workers from contributing. More recently, the upshot of historic period discrimination has become of interest in most developed countries every bit the retirement of the infant smash generation stresses public alimony programs, a trouble that could be ameliorated with little loss of quality of life if older people remained in the labor forcefulness.

The ADEA protects workers and potential workers from historic period-based bigotry in terms of hiring, firing, and other atmospheric condition of employment. In add-on to the federal ADEA, individual states take their ain legislation protecting workers from discrimination based on age, beginning with Colorado's statute in 1903. Figure 1 shows the introductory dates for land legislation. Although many states essentially copied the federal law, some have had more than restrictive laws. Additionally, an idiosyncrasy in the federal law provides potential plaintiffs in states with state laws additional time to bring a lawsuit compared to those in states without their own laws.

Note: Information on years from Lahey 2008(b).

Anatomy of a Police

The original 1967 federal law protected workers age forty to age 65 and immune for mandatory retirement and other discriminatory behavior later age 65. In 1978, the police force expanded to cover those age 40 to 70 and in 1986 removed the upper age limit entirely. In 1978, the police also immune the right to a jury trial and in 1979 the Department of Labor moved enforcement to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), both of which strengthened the enforcement of the ADEA (Hersch and Viscusi 2004, Neumark 2001). The law included some exceptions, allowing mandatory retirement to be phased out by 1993 for workers in jobs with tenure, such as academy professors. The ADEA covers workers in firms of xx workers or more, in dissimilarity to the more than restrictive Civil Rights Deed (1964) that protects those in firms of 15 or more workers from discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, or religion.

Employers are allowed to utilize age as a qualification in employment decisions if there is a "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification" or BFOQ that is directly related to age. A common instance given is that of an acting position. In practice, the courts have also allowed age to be considered a BFOQ in cases where public safety may be affected, including occupations such as pilots, air traffic controllers, or bus drivers. The federal law also exempts high-salaried policy-making positions (such as CEO) from historic period discrimination police force.

Unlike the U.s. Civil Rights human action, which allows amercement for emotional suffering and castigating damages, the ADEA limits awards to plaintiffs to "make whole" status, that is, returning plaintiffs to the point where they would have been had they not been discriminated against. These awards tin include hiring, reinstating, promoting, back pay, restoring benefits and paying lawyer fees. Lawyer fees oftentimes make upwardly the bulk of the award to ADEA recipients. Boosted damages are only awarded in rare cases in which the defendant has willfully violated the law and these damages are limited to twice the amount of actual damages (O'Meara 1989, Lindemann and Kadue 2003). Because of these limits to amercement, the bulk of plaintiffs nether the ADEA have been white male middle managers in their 50s who accept lost sizeable salaries and benefits (Schuster and Miller 1984, O'Meara 1989). From the firm'southward perspective, if the penalties are not steep enough, it may exist a profitable business organisation decision to ignore the police force and pay penalties as they occur. However, consumer backlash from publicized discrimination cases may brand this type of constabulary violation less palatable to firms.

Interpretation

The interpretation of the law in court is field of study to whether or not disparate impact cases are allowed in add-on to disparate treatment cases. While disparate handling cases crave intentional bigotry, in disparate impact cases a policy can indirectly touch a protected group differently than the unprotected group. A common instance of a disparate impact policy would be a minimum tiptop requirement that has a disparate impact on women, who are shorter than men on boilerplate. For age, disparate impact often involves decisions based on seniority or wages such every bit the determination to fire those who take the highest salaries or who have been with the firm the longest. Recently, in Smith v. Metropolis of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), the United States Supreme Courtroom held that the ADEA authorizes recovery for disparate impact claims of discrimination. The Court also held that the "reasonable factors other than historic period" ("RFOA") test, rather than a "business-necessity" test, is the appropriate standard for determining the legality practices that disproportionately bear on older individuals. This ruling differed from the EEOC'due south earlier position that an employment practice that had a disparate impact on individuals within the protected age group could not be a reasonable factor other than historic period unless it was justified as a business necessity. ²

A second legal interpretation question is that of who bears the burden of proof in disparate impact cases. Mostly, this question is equivalent to whether the plaintiff must testify that a policy is intentionally discriminatory, or whether the defendant must prove that the policy had a bona fide business organization rationale. This burden of proof has shifted from defendant to plaintiff and back in historic period cases since the 1970s. Currently the 2005 Smith v. Metropolis of Jackson ruling is that "information technology is not enough to simply allege that there is a disparate impact on workers, or point to a generalized policy that leads to such an affect. Rather, the employee is 'responsible for isolating and identifying the specific employment practices that are allegedly responsible for any observed statistical disparities.'" Smith v. Metropolis of Jackson, 544 U.South. 228, 241 (2005) (quoting Wards Cove, 490 U.Southward. at 656).

Procedure

If a state has its own age discrimination statutes, the ADEA requires the claimant to file with the country Fair Employment Practices (FEP) part within 300 days of the occurrence of the incident. In the few states that do not have statutes, the claimant must file with the EEOC within 180 days. The EEOC can then dismiss the claim, at which bespeak the claimant may pursue a ceremonious action in courtroom, or the EEOC tin seek to settle or mediate. If the settlement or mediation is unsuccessful, the EEOC can and then sue, or if it chooses not to sue, the claimant may sue (Neumark 2001). Over 95% of employment discrimination cases are brought past private attorneys, non the EEOC, and of the cases filed in federal court for employment discrimination, 92% are never brought to trial (Gregory 2001).

If the instance goes to trial, the plaintiff first shows prove of disparate treatment, that is, that there was a motive to discriminate based on age, if there is any testify. The virtually common blazon of evidence for direct discrimination is a verbal argument of age bias every bit company policy. If there is no direct prove of discrimination, then the plaintiff shows that he or she is in the protected age range, suffered an adverse reaction, was successfully performing to the employer's expectations of the work, and was replaced. Adjacent the defendant presents one of the exceptions or defenses to the ADEA. Finally, the plaintiff attempts to establish that this defense is untrue.

Effects of the law

Laws protecting people from age discrimination potentially have both positive and negative effects. Any law that manipulates free market decisions could have negative impacts on individual firm productivity, in this case preventing employers from making efficient hiring and firing decisions. Nevertheless, if the constabulary is fixing market failures, such as those caused by incorrect stereotypes, lack of data, or tastes for discrimination, it tin improve business firm productivity. Overall productivity in the economic system may exist increased if the police allows older potential workers who would have been unproductive in the absence of the police force to get productive members of gild, although resources used to follow and enforce the constabulary may exist a drain on social club.

On the individual level, because it is much easier to discover discrimination in one case a worker has been employed, the law will have the result of protecting those with jobs from termination and other negative deportment. However, short of overt discriminatory language, information technology is almost impossible to detect discrimination on the hiring margin. Therefore, the constabulary may have the event of preventing those who might have been hired in the absence of the law from beingness hired; because of the constabulary, firms may not wish to chance with a worker who will be difficult to burn.

Empirically, we tin test which of these two competing effects, decreases in hiring or decreases in firing, boss over time and for different groups in the labor strength. Early on, the law may have fifty-fifty had positive furnishings on the hiring margin because of its furnishings on social norms regarding aging. The ADEA has virtually eliminated historic period-based language in ad, and in the United States, information technology is no longer the norm to put nascence-appointment or familial status data on a resume or embrace letter and work histories are mostly limited to the previous 10 years. Using a differences-in-differences strategy that assumes that states with their own laws are untreated by the federal ADEA, Adams (2004) determines that the introduction of the law in 1967 caused a small positive issue on overall employment for older workers, a finding consequent with Lahey (2008b). Neumark and Stock (1999) and Jolls (1996) suggest that the ADEA may also amend efficiency during this fourth dimension menses in companies with long-term Lazear-blazon contracts because the ADEA provides a commitment device for these contracts in the absence of perfect employee monitoring; the ADEA improves employee willingness to exist compensated at lower wages when first entering a firm on the promise of college wages subsequently.

Yet, the furnishings of the ADEA may not exist fixed over fourth dimension. The law was strengthened past expansions and increases in enforcement in 1978 and 1979. Lahey (2008b) exploits a deviation in the legal environs that makes information technology easier for those in states with their own age bigotry laws to sue than those in states without their own discrimination laws. This written report finds unintended negative consequences of the police on employment for older men. Men piece of work 1.5 fewer weeks per year in states where it is easier to sue subsequently the 1978 enforcement of the police than do men in states where it is not as easy to sue. Men are both less probable to be hired and less probable to be fired in these states, suggesting that firms take the probability of a lawsuit from older applicants into account when making hiring and firing decisions. In that location is no negative bear upon on women of the same age groups.

Other work examines the upshot of changes on mandatory retirement directly. Mitchell and Luzadis (1988) find that prior to age discrimination laws in 1960, pension plans rewarded delayed retirement, simply by the 1980s union plans actively encouraged early retirement while non-matrimony plans encouraged delayed retirement. Von Wachter (2002) examines the shift of mandatory retirement to age 70 in 1978 and its end in 1986 using imputed probability of beingness covered by mandated retirement, and finds that the labor force participation of workers historic period 65 and older increases by 10 to twenty percent in 1986 in specific industries. Ashenfelter and Carte (2002) show that the abolition of retirement for higher professors in 1994 reduced retirement for those historic period 70 and 71.

Even with stronger incarnations of the Age Bigotry in Employment Act in place, historic period discrimination has not been eliminated from the US labor force. From 1992 to 2008, on average 15.79% of ADEA cases, for a total of 44,624 cases, were described every bit "merit resolutions," or successful claims, by the EEOC (author's calculations). ³ These numbers give only a lower leap because many instances of age discrimination are never litigated, and cases of hiring discrimination often get undetected. In 2002–2003, Lahey (2008a) performed an audit written report, or correspondence review, experiment in Boston, MA and Petrograd, FL, sending out thousands of resumes and measuring the response charge per unit based on date of high school graduation. Because of the demand to brand handling and control groups similar except for historic period, the study was limited to entry-level women with work histories of 10 years or less. Amid this group, younger applicants (those whose date of high schoolhouse graduation indicated that they were less than 50 years onetime) were 40% more probable to exist called dorsum for an interview than were older applicants (Lahey 2008a).

Importance of Enforcement and Publicity

On ane manus, a police has no teeth without the threat of enforcement. On the other paw, employers may exist more willing to take a chance on hiring older workers if they are not concerned about the ability to remove those workers later on. Between 1967 and 1978, the ADEA was publicized merely there was no formal enforcement machinery at the federal level for violations of the law. In theory, firms were not truly constrained by the police force, and therefore may not have taken information technology into account when making hiring decisions. The positive issue on employment found past Adams (2004) could have been caused by a decrease in historic period-related advertisements or a change in social norms influenced by the law. However, there may accept also been a subtract in firing caused past the threat of individual lawsuits; these may not have been widespread enough for firms to take them into account during the hiring conclusion, but could still accept increased employment overall. During the later period when there was much stronger enforcement, Lahey 2008b shows a strong relationship between the groups virtually likely to sue for historic period discrimination and the propensity for employers not to hire those workers. The hiring of women and minorities does not seem to be affected by the ADEA, and those groups are extremely unlikely to bring lawsuits during the 1978–1991 time period studied. Only white men over 50, the group that brought the majority of historic period bigotry lawsuits (Schuster and Miller 1984, O'Meara 1989), seem to have been affected past the constabulary; they were less likely to exist hired and less likely to be fired.

Publicity, the extent to which employers and potential employees know about the laws, may also bear upon whether reduced firing or reduced hiring dominates overall employment of older workers. To this author'south noesis, no 1 has studied the trends in prevalence of advertisements that utilize age cut-offs or discriminatory language; even so, prior to the original ADEA they were broad-spread and today they are much more express. It is quite possible that removal of these age limits has increased hiring of older workers without any negative consequences, to the extent that employers are able to get more than information to right inaccurate negative stereotypes and are better able to hire older job seekers who practise non fit the boilerplate profile of an older worker. Additionally, this removal could change social norms, increasing the age at which society believes that people should stop looking for work. Cognition of age bigotry laws may also protect currently employed workers from discrimination and dismissal. However, publicity of these laws could also have negative consequences if firms react (or over-react) past increasing discrimination on the hiring margin for fear of existence stuck with a worker who will exist difficult to remove later.

Although the ADEA has non eliminated age discrimination from the labor market place, and may actually crusade some discrimination in hiring amid middle-anile males, it is difficult to believe that eliminating the ADEA would effect in meliorate employment outcomes for older people, especially if age-based advertizing returns.

EUROPEAN Case

Directive 2000/78/EC Framework Directive

European historic period bigotry law is guided by the European Union's Framework directive 2000/78. Article xiii of the 1998 EC Treaty immune for future employment protection legislation past permitting "appropriate activity to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, faith or conventionalities, disability, historic period or sexual orientation" (1998 ECR I-621, 651, Riesenhuber 2009). The Directive 2000/78 was agreed upon in 2000 and was to be put into national law by member states by December 2003, allowing member countries to request an boosted 3 years to formulate historic period and disability legislation (Adnett and Hardy 2007, Bong 2002, Riesenhuber 2009). The Directive only covers employment bigotry and specifically excludes state social security and social protection programs.

The European Commission's stated reasons for examining the issues of age discrimination were heavily influenced by economical reasons. The population of older people has been increasing in relation to those "working age." This increment is pressuring pension systems and other public finance systems. Additional financing pressures for healthcare and old-age care will be acquired by those too frail to work. The European Commission also recognized that at that place is a large corporeality of diversity amid older workers—some will pressure governmental systems, just some can be tapped to contribute to these systems. The Commission thus hoped to increase the employment charge per unit of able-bodied workers over the historic period of 50 in European countries through eliminating age bigotry (Sargeant 2006).

Most fellow member countries did not take age discrimination legislation of their own prior to the inclusive legislation. Those that did more often than not amended or strengthened their legislation to bring information technology in line with the Framework Directive. Italy introduced general protection laws in 1970, but greatly strengthened them in 2003 (Radoccia 2009, Toffoletto e Soci 2009). Finland amended its penal code in 1995 to make age bigotry illegal in Penal Code Chapter 47, south three and passed a new Not-Discrimination Act in 2004 (Koto and Viljakainen 2009, Finnish Penal Code 2003). Poland and Romania originally implemented age discrimination laws in 1996 and 1991 respectively, nevertheless these laws did not have "properly structured sanctions" and were updated to be in line with the European Directive in 2004 and 2000 respectively (Bazilescu 2009, Raczkowski 2009). Ireland instituted an Employment Equality act in 1998 and amended it in 2004 (Adnett and Hardy 2007, Langford and Casey 2009). Similarly Kingdom of belgium prohibited age discrimination in recruitment and selection in a 1998 law and instituted the Anti-Discrimination Human activity in 2007 (Adnett and Hardy 2007, Stox 2009). Spain outlawed age discrimination with the Workers Statute in 1980, only has been ane of the worst discriminators (Drury 1993); it again updated its laws in 2005 (Sagardoy 2009). ⁴

Belgium, Republic of bulgaria, Denmark, Hungary, the Netherlands, ⁵ Portugal, and Romania are among us that instituted new legislation on or before the original borderline of December 2003 (Almeida 2009, Bazilescu 2009, Karacholova and Yaneva 2009, Krisch and Kürti 2009). Austria, Republic of cyprus, Denmark, France, Deutschland, ⁶ Hellenic republic, Grand duchy of luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Sweden, and the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland are among those member states that used extension time to codify and implement the age discrimination provisions of the Framework Directive (Banatvala and Flanagan 2009, Brincat 2009, Castegnaro and Claverie 2009, Čermák and Sturdíková 2009, Emilianides 2009, Iliadou 2009, Kliemt and Vollstadt 2009, Madsen 2009, Mertinz 2009, O'Cinneide 2005, Sands, Tour, and Truchot 2009, Stalhåmmar 2009, von Steinau-Steinrück and Vernuft 2009). In all, at least 25 countries in Europe have or will introduce legislation prohibiting age discrimination. Figure 2 groups countries by their appointment of original police passage.

Timing of Passage of First Age Discrimination Constabulary

Mod laws prohibit explicit age limits in advertizing for most occupations. Prior to the Framework Directive, some countries already prohibited age-based advertisements or had social norms that did non include them. For case, France prohibited them, and West Federal republic of germany and Italy had low use in 1993. All the same, Spain, Greece, and the Uk reported xl% of task advertisements having upper age limits (Drury 1993, Sands et al. 2009). Examining Craigslist ads, Greece and Kingdom of spain still take customer service advertisements with age limits, but most of the other countries in the Eu with Craigslist pages do non (author's calculations). However, in place of explicit age qualifications, advertisements in many countries did request pictures with task applications, even for occupations in which appearance should not exist the predominant qualification. The asking of photos with the resume is very uncommon in the U.s.a. outside of occupations for which appearance is a BFOQ, such as acting or modeling, perchance because companies practise not desire to open themselves up to claims of discrimination. Given that enquiry shows that employers discriminate based on attractiveness (Rooth 2009), the asking of a photo could implicitly substitute for age bars on the hiring margin. Additionally, about applicants still include engagement of nativity in the standard c.v.

Unlike almost age discrimination legislation in the United States, Directive 2000/78 does not target bigotry against older workers solitary. Instead, it disallows whatsoever bigotry based on historic period alone, including that confronting younger workers. Additionally, similar the early versions of the ADEA, but unlike the modern ADEA, Directive 2000/78 allows member states to specify mandatory retirement ages (Adnett and Hardy 2007, O'Cinneide 2005, Riesenhuber 2009). Considering a business firm would be allowed to forcibly retire an older worker at mandatory retirement age, it is plausible (though has not been thoroughly tested) that none of the other age protections would apply after the mandatory retirement historic period. The mandatory retirement age for many member countries is 65, although exceptions be. For example, Ireland removed its age limit in 2004 (previously the limit was 65) and Cyprus allows a retirement age limit of 63 (formerly historic period 60) for civil servants (Emilianides 2009, Langford and Casey 2009, O'Cinneide 2005).

Exemptions

In addition to the potential exemptions for people over mandatory retirement age, Directive 2000/78 allows countries to make exceptions for certain industries, such as the military machine, judiciary, and regime. Information technology also allows exceptions for "occupational requirement," a term similar to the BFOQ in US police, and for "legitimate aims." The list of potential "occupational requirements" is similar to that of the US, primarily focusing on acting and occupations in which rubber could be compromised by atmospheric condition correlated with crumbling. However, the list of "legitimate aims" provided in Article 6.1 to let for direct age discrimination is much broader than the exceptions allowed in the U.s., and includes items such as experience and seniority, time before retirement, and the promotion of vocational integration (Adnett and Hardy 2007, O'Cinneide 2005, Riesenhuber 2009). The UK has an even broader list of "legitimate aims" that address visitor planning and training goals. The Dutch Supreme Court has agreed with allowing compulsory retirement ages to ensure worker turnover and encourage younger recruits (Banatvala and Flanagan 2009, O'Cinneide 2005, ten Bokum and Hoekerd 2009).

O'Cinneide (2005) distinguishes among 3 dissimilar means that member states provide guidance for exemptions. The most specific of these he terms "closed systems." These list specific circumstances for exemptions. For case, in addition to prohibitions and allowances for juveniles, Ireland specifically allows a maximum recruitment age in cases in which the job requires training or an "effective" period earlier retirement age. It besides allows "18-carat and determining occupational requirements" and exemptions for public transportation licenses. (Langford and Casey 2009, O'Cinneide 2005). These exemptions are like to case law in the United States, except for the "constructive" period before retirement age. At the other end of the specificity spectrum, "open systems" provide a more than vague full general guideline for how to decide cases. For example, Belgium allows for differential handling that is "objectively and reasonably justified" and Finland allows distinctions for "a justified purpose" (Koto and Viljakainen 2009, Stox 2009). Some countries such as Cyprus and Poland transplant the Directive 2000/78 language directly (O'Cinneide 2005). Estimation of these exemptions will be based on futurity case constabulary. Finally, "half-open systems" provide both a specific list and a general test. For example, the Netherlands both gives general "objectively justified" examination, and specifically allows for a retirement historic period of 65 (O'Cinneide 2005, Holtmaat 2007, ten Bokum and Hoekerd 2009).

Procedure and Punishments

The Directive ensures that those who believe they have been discriminated against can bring their complaints through their national court system. Time limits for bringing a claim are set by the state and vary considerably (Adnett and Hardy 2007, Riesenhuber 2009). Republic of austria allows up to a yr for complaints depending on the type of complaint, whereas in Germany, the plaintiff must bring the case within ii months (Mertinz 2009, von Steinau-Steinrück and Vernuft 2009). Article 17 of the directive allows fellow member states to decide their ain sanctions, so long as they are, "effective, proportionate, and dissuasive." In practise, these penalties vary widely. For example, Austria limits authoritative compensation to 360 Euros, failure to hire at 500 Euros, failure to promote at the difference in salary for 3 months and hardship compensation at 720 Euros (Kunz Shima Wallentin 2009, Mertinz 2009). Even so, France limits to 45,000 Euro compensation and too allows for criminal charges of upward to 3 years imprisonment (Sands et al 2009). Several countries take compensation similar to the "make whole" legislation in the United States. Depending on the force of the penalty, companies may brand a business determination to discriminate and to pay the punishment if the expected value cost of being caught is less than that of not discriminating. However, the possibility of consumer backlash, as is argued to exist the case for the netherlands where companies are not bound by the decisions of the Committee for Equal Treatment, may make this selection less attractive (10 Bokum and Hoekerd 2009).

The Brunt of Proof rests with the complainant, although the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in a 1989 sexual practice discrimination example, Danfoss, that the worker merely needs to evidence a suspicion of unequal treatment, if a practice is not transparent, to shift the burden of proof to the defendant. In practice, in cases of indirect discrimination, it is more often than not necessary to evidence that the complainant is both a different age than the comparator and better qualified. Other factors that may shift the burden of proof to the defendant include statistical differences in success rates between age groups, discriminatory comments or language, lack of transparency, a mismatch betwixt formal selection criteria and actual selection criteria, and discriminatory questions during an interview stage (O'Cinneide 2005). In cases of direct discrimination, Directive 2000/78 includes something called a "comparator." Commodity 2.one.ii(a) states, "directly discrimination shall be taken to occur where ane person is treated less favorably than another is, has been, or would be treated in a comparable situation." In exercise, this requirement is difficult to implement because it is non always easy to find a direct comparator, real or hypothetical (O'Cinneide 2005).

Once the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant, the defendant must show that "there has been no breach of the principle of equal handling" or that the apply of age was "appropriate and necessary" (O'Cinneide 2005, Sargeant 2006). Age discrimination is permitted if individual assessment is impractical (O'Cinneide 2005). It is likewise permitted if there is an occupational requirement or there are "legitimate aims" to the bigotry. Disparate impact cases are immune by the Directive (Sargeant 2006).

Case law and do will decide the extent to which these new laws against age bigotry are enforced and publicized. Laws that are enforced and publicized should have greater furnishings, both intentional and unintentional, than those that are not. A study on Spain for www.agediscrimination.info (and confirmed in Cortadi and Aragón 2009) notes that although Espana's law is relatively strong and does non cap damages, discrimination of all kinds is still common in Spain and the courts have been reluctant to find against defendants (Cortadi and Aragón 2009, Sagardoy 2009). The report besides notes that there has not been much publicity about historic period discrimination law.

Decision

In the United States, legislation prohibiting age discrimination has been in existence for decades, just its effects are still non completely understood. Prohibiting historic period bigotry in the U.s. has positive effects for those workers already employed, but has negative effects on those seeking piece of work. The furnishings of age bigotry law in Europe are but now beginning to be realized. Depending on the different characteristics of these laws, they may take little effect or they may change how older people are perceived and treated by employers – for better or for worse. However potent the furnishings of these laws, it must be emphasized that these historic period discrimination laws practise not work in a vacuum. At that place are potentially much stronger effects on the social norms surrounding older employment from eligibility for pension, disability, and social security. Mandatory retirement ages also still be in many European countries, after which point age discrimination laws are generally not in effect.

Footnotes

²The recent 2009 Ricci v. DeStefano decision may have made it more than difficult for plaintiffs to win disparate affect cases.

³http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/adea-a.html

^fourManufactures with information by country on age discrimination laws can be found from www.agediscrimination.info and in ten Bokum et al (2009). Further information on these laws tin can be found in European Commission (2006) and data for Bulgaria is from Guentcheva (2006).

^vThe Netherlands legislation came into effect in May 2004 (x Bokum and Hoekerd 2009).

⁶Notation that Germany had legislation passed in 2001, the German Works Constitution Act, that regulated works councils, mandating that they "ensure that older employees are non discriminated against" (Adnat and Hardy 2007). Federal republic of germany's law complied with the European union directive in 2006.

Works Cited

• Acemoglu Daron, Angrist Joshua. Consequence of employment protection? The case of the Americans with Disabilities Human activity. Journal of Political Economic system. 2001;19:915–950. [Google Scholar]
• Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Pub. Fifty. No. 90–202, 81 Stat. 602.
• Adams Scott J. Historic period Discrimination Legislation and the Employment of Older Workers. Labour Economics. 2004;11(2):219–41. [Google Scholar]
• Almeida Joana. Portugal. In: x Bokum North, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Historic period Discrimination Law in Europe. Holland: Wolters Kluwer: Police force and Buisness; 2009. pp. 271–283. [Google Scholar]
• Ashenfelter Orley, Menu David. Did the Emptying of Mandatory Retirement Touch Faculty Retirement. American Economic Review. 2002;92(four):957–80. [Google Scholar]
• Adnett Nick, Hardy Stephen. The Peculiar Case of Age Discrimination: Americanising the European Social Model? European Journal of Law and Economics. 2007;23:29–41. [Google Scholar]
• Banatvala Sarah, Flanagan Tom. United Kingdom. In: ten Bokum Due north, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Bigotry Police in Europe. The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Buisness; 2009. pp. 375–390. [Google Scholar]
• Bazilescu Cristina. Romania. In: ten Bokum Northward, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Police force in Europe. The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Buisness; 2009. pp. 285–295. [Google Scholar]
• Bell Marker. Anti-Discrimination Law and the European union. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Brincat Matthew. Republic of malta. In: x Bokum Northward, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Law in Europe. The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Buisness; 2009. pp. 233–242. [Google Scholar]
• Castagnaro Guy, Claverie Ariane. Luxembourg. In: ten Bokum N, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Historic period Bigotry Law in Europe. The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Police and Buisness; 2009. pp. 217–232. [Google Scholar]
• Čermák Tomáš, Sturdíková Karin. Slovakia. In: ten Bokum N, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Law in Europe. The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Constabulary and Buisness; 2009. pp. 309–326. [Google Scholar]
• Civil Rights Deed of 1964. Pub. L. No. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241.
• Cortadi Eva Sainz, Aragon Jesus Domingo. Spain. In: ten Bokum N, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Bigotry Law in Europe. The netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Constabulary and Buisness; 2009. pp. 339–346. [Google Scholar]
• DeLeire Thomas. The Wage and Employment Effects of the Americans with Disabilities Deed. Journal of Human Resources. 2000;35(four):693–715. [Google Scholar]
• Directive 2000/78/EC: Employment Framework Directive.
• Drury Elizabeth. Age Bigotry against Older Workers in the European Customs. Vol. 651. London, Britain: Eurolink Age; 1993. E.C.R. I-621. 1998. [Google Scholar]
• Emilianides Achilles C. Cyprus. In: ten Bokum Northward, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Historic period Discrimination Law in Europe. Holland: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Buisness; 2009. pp. 55–63. [Google Scholar]
• European Commission. Equality and Non-Discrimination: Annual Report 2006. Luxembourg: European Communities; 2006. [Google Scholar]
• European Court Reports. 1998;I-621:651. [Google Scholar]
• Gregory Raymond F. Old at a Young Age. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
• Guentcheva Rossitza. ASO Project Report. 2006. Overview of the Status of Anti-Discrimination Legislation in Bulgaria. [Google Scholar]
• Hersch Joni, Kip Viscusi W. Castigating Damages: How Judges and Juries Perform. Journal of Legal Studies. 2004;33:1–36. [Google Scholar]
• Holtmaat Rikki. Country Report: Kingdom of the netherlands. 2007 Retrieved March 1, 2010 ( http://world wide web.migpolgroup.com/public/docs/125.Netherlands_DiscriminationCountryReport_EN_01.07.pdf)
• Iliadou Tati. Hellenic republic. In: ten Bokum Northward, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Constabulary in Europe. Holland: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Buisness; 2009. pp. 141–156. [Google Scholar]
• Jolls Christine. Easily-Tying and the Historic period Bigotry in Employment Deed. Texas Constabulary Review. 1996;74:1813–46. [Google Scholar]
• Karacholova Maria, Yaneva Tanya. Republic of bulgaria. In: ten Bokum Northward, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Constabulary in Europe. The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Buisness; 2009. pp. 39–54. [Google Scholar]
• Kliemt, Vollstadt Germany. 2009 Retrieved March i, 2010 ( http://www.agediscrimination.info/international/Pages/Germany.aspx)
• Koto Lassi, Viljakainen Petteri. Republic of finland. In: ten Bokum N, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Law in Europe. The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Buisness; 2009. pp. 103–114. [Google Scholar]
• Krisch Imre, Kürti Nora. Hungary. In: ten Bokum North, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Historic period Discrimination Law in Europe. Holland: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Buisness; 2009. pp. 157–170. [Google Scholar]
• Wallentin Kunz Shima. Republic of austria. 2009 Retrieved March 1, 2010 ( http://www.agediscrimination.info/international/Pages/Austria.aspx)
• Lahey Joanna. Age, Women, and Hiring: An Experimental Report. Journal of Human Resource. 2008a;43(1):xxx–56. [Google Scholar]
• Lahey Country Age Discrimination Laws and the Age Discrimination in Employment Deed. Periodical of Law and Economics. 2008b;51(3):433–lx. [Google Scholar]
• Langford Kevin, Casey Sinead. Ireland. In: x Bokum N, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Law in Europe. The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Buisness; 2009. pp. 171–181. [Google Scholar]
• Lindemann Barbara T, Kadue David D. Age Discrimination in Employment Law. Portland, OR: BNA Books; 2003. [Google Scholar]
• Madsen Sofie Høeg. Denmark. In: ten Bokum N, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Law in Europe. The netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Police force and Buisness; 2009. pp. 77–86. [Google Scholar]
• Mertinz Anna. Austria. In: ten Bokum Northward, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Law in Europe. Holland: Wolters Kluwer: Police and Buisness; 2009. pp. 1–eighteen. [Google Scholar]
• Mitchell Olivia S, Luzadis R Annamarie. Changes in Pension Incentives through Time. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 1988;42(one):100–08. [Google Scholar]
• Neumark David. Age Discrimination in the U.Southward.: Assessment of the Show. In: Hornstein Z, editor. Outlawing Age Discrimination. Bristol, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 2001. pp. 43–62. [Google Scholar]
• Neumark David, Stock Wendy A. Historic period Discrimination Laws and Labor Market place Efficiency. Journal of Political Economy. 1999;107(five):1081–125. [Google Scholar]
• O'Cinneide Colm. European Committee. Grand duchy of luxembourg: Function for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2005. Age Discrimination and European Law. [Google Scholar]
• O'Meara Daniel P. Protecting the Growing Number of Older Workers: The Historic period Discrimination in Employment Act. Philadelphia, PA: Academy of Pennsylvania; 1989. [Google Scholar]
• Penal Code of Finland. 2003. Chapter 47, Section 3.
• Raczkowski Poland. 2009 Retrieved March i, 2010 ( http://world wide web.agediscrimination.info/international/Pages/Poland.aspx)
• Radoccia Stefania. Italian republic. In: ten Bokum N, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Law in Europe. The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Buisness; 2009. pp. 183–198. [Google Scholar]
• Riesenhuber Karl. The EC Anti-Discrimination Framework Directive 2000/78. In: ten Bokum N, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Law in Europe. The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Buisness; 2009. pp. xxvii–xlvi. [Google Scholar]
• Rooth Dan. Obesity, Bewitchery, and Differential Treatment in Hiring: A Field Experiment. Journal of Human Resources. 2009;44(three):710–735. [Google Scholar]
• Sagardoy Spain. 2009 Retrieved March 1, 2010 ( http://www.agediscrimination.info/international/Pages/Spain.aspx)
• Sands Roselyn, Tour Laurent-Paul, Truchot Mathilde. French republic. In: ten Bokum N, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Law in Europe. Kingdom of the netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Police force and Buisness; 2009. pp. 115–124. [Google Scholar]
• Sargeant Malcolm. Age Discrimination in Employment. Aldershot, U.k. and Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Express and Ashgate Publishing Company; 2006. [Google Scholar]
• Schuster Michael, Miller Christopher S, Christopher Due south. An Empirical Cess of the Age Discrimination in Employment Human action. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 1984;38(1):64–74. [Google Scholar]
• Smith v. Metropolis of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 241 (2005).
• Stalhåmmar Jessica. Sweden. In: ten Bokum Due north, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Bigotry Police in Europe. Holland: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Buisness; 2009. pp. 347–352. [Google Scholar]
• Steinau-Steinrück Robert von, Vernuft Cord. Frg. In: ten Bokum Northward, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Law in Europe. Kingdom of the netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Buisness; 2009. pp. 125–140. [Google Scholar]
• Stox Yves. Kingdom of belgium. In: 10 Bokum Northward, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Police in Europe. The netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Buisness; 2009. pp. 19–38. [Google Scholar]
• Ten Bokum Nicky, Hoekerd Ilya. Holland. In: ten Bokum N, Flanagan T, Sands R, von Steinau-Steinruck R, editors. Age Discrimination Law in Europe. Holland: Wolters Kluwer: Police and Buisness; 2009. pp. 243–256. [Google Scholar]
• Ten Bokum Nicky, Flanagan Tom, Sands Roselyn, von Steinau-Steinruck Robert., editors. Historic period Discrimination Law in Europe. The netherlands: Wolters Kluwer: Law and Business organisation; 2009. [Google Scholar]
• Soci Toffoletto Due east. Italia. 2009 Retrieved March 1, 2010 ( http://www.agediscrimination.info/international/Pages/Italy.aspx)
• U.S. Section of Labor. The Older American Worker: Historic period Discrimination in Employment. Report of the Secretary of Labor to the Congress under Department 715 of the Ceremonious Rights Act of 1964. Washington, DC: Government Press Office; 1965. [Google Scholar]
• Wachter Til von. The Centre for Labor Economics Working Newspaper. Berkeley, CA: University of California; 2002. The End of Mandatory Retirement in the US: Effects on Retirement and Implicit Contracts. [Google Scholar]
• Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 656 (1989).

tatepacury.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154604/

Share this post