Question

10.7 Opening Scenario. Having read and discussed the chapter, how would you answer the Opening Scenario prompt at the beginning of the chapter?

Chapter Opening | Scenario

A 53-year old job applicant sued Starbucks when she was not hired as a barista. The applicant applied to three Starbucks locations on four separate occasions. There was evidence at one specific location that the hiring manager hired 19 baristas, none of whom were older than 30 at the time of hiring. In reading this chapter, consider what other evidence would be needed for this applicant to succeed in prosecuting an age discrimination claim.1

Answer 1

An employer submits age discrimination when they treat a person who is equipped for their job contrastingly in light of their age. Age discrimination in work is illicit under federal law.

Age discrimination is additionally unlawful under numerous states' laws. Victims of age discrimination might be qualified for cures. Remedies incorporate (among others) remuneration for harms, and employment restoration.

As per the, federal law,  Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) helps in protecting employees having 40 years or more of age from discrimination on the point of age.

The following scenarios are to be considered forbided discrimination:

• Failing to appoint, refusing to hire, or discharging any person because of their age;
• Acting with an individual in an unexpected way, as for compensation, terms, conditions, or benefits of work, in light of such person's age.

Terms, conditions, or benefits of employment incrporate subject matter such as salary, benefits, and opportunities for promotion or other headway.

The ADEA applies to private employers who:

• currently working 20 or more employees; and
• Engage in interstate commerce.

The ADEA is applicable to public employers as well.

Age discrimation under the ADEA can be demonstrated under two categories. One of these speculations is known as the disparate treatment theory. The other hypothesis is known as the disparate impact theory. These two speculations might be applied in different lawful cases, contingent upon the conditions.

Under the disparate treatment theory, a worker must demonstrate purposeful discrimination based on age. An employee makes a prima facie case by demonstrating the accompanying:

i)The worker, at the act alleged to be discriminatory, is 40 or more older;

ii)The worker is equipped for their job position;

iii)The worker experiences an adverse employment action;

iv) Adverse actions incorporate activities, for example, downgrades, firings, or changes to the terms, conditions or benefits of employment;

v) The unfriendly activity emerged under realities offering ascend to an induction of separation.

vi) Such facts may incorporate the way that the representative was terminated, and replaced by a substantially younger person..

To win a case of disparate treatment discrimination, the representative must exhibit that age was the "yet for" (legitimate) explanation behind the discrimination. That is, the employee must show that, had it not been for the worker's age, the adverse action would not have been taken.

Therefore, the job applicant should go through the law and remedies written above. Based on the case study, the actions that job applicant can take against Starbucks are:-

i) Contract in which all the terms & conditions are written should be studies properly and used as an evidence.

ii) It can be act as an evidence if Starbucks has hired any young person instead of hiring the job applicant having 53 years of age.

iii) The job applicant was qualified and experienced for this job but still someone else with less experience is hired considering the age factor