"This is a
real crisis for employers who haven't properly established procedures for
making sure that bias does not creep into decisions and who haven't reviewed
and revised their employment policies to ensure fair practices," said Gayla
Crain, a leading employment law attorney at Epstein
Becker
Green Wickliff and Hall in the Dallas office. "The situation is reaching a
point of no return, with the EEOC already collecting upwards of
seventy-eight million dollars on age bias lawsuits alone."
Is age
bias real? A younger worker is over forty percent more likely to be called
for an interview than a worker 50 or older, according to a 2005 study
conducted by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, which
sent out about 4,000 resumes to firms in Boston and St. Petersburg, Fla. and
evaluated response rates from employers.
"A policy
or practice that seems acceptable on its face may nevertheless discriminate
against the older workers in a company's workforce," said Crain. "This
phenomenon is known as 'disparate impact,' and it can be expensive."
The issue
of "disparate impact" and older workers arises most frequently with respect
to job termination. When a company decides that it must reduce its
workforce, it may seek to cut the highest-paid employees first or the long
term employee whose performance has declined. This oftenmeans those who have
been there longest, who are paid more to reflect their greater experience,
and who are frequently older.
"A company
must have a legitimate business reason for all hiring and termination
decisions which may exclude older workers," said Marty Wickliff, a veteran
labor and employment trial attorney and managing partner of Epstein Becker
Green Wickliff & Hall's, Houston office. "Above all, a company should
develop and strictly enforce objective standards to be used in identifying
and executing employment decisions, and seek counsel if there is any doubt
as to the legality of a policy."