Question

According to the EEOC lawsuit, a 64-year-old, qualified applicant was referred by a staffing agency for a vacant position with United Precision. During the interview with United Precision, the company's plant superintendent then asked the applicant his age and date of high school graduation, which the applicant reluctantly supplied. The superintendent also asked for and received the applicant's driver's license and twice commented about how good he looked for his age. United Precision rejected the applicant for the position, claiming the superintendent believed the applicant lacked the commitment to work long-term. When the staffing agency sent an email reassuring the superintendent the applicant intended to work for at least another 10 years, the superintendent did not respond.

Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 2:20-cv-10930 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process.

The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief prohibiting the employer from discriminating against applicants based on age, as well as monetary relief, including backpay and liquidated damages, and other relief for the applicant.

"Refusing to hire an applicant because of age is a textbook violation of the ADEA," said Dale Price, trial attorney for the Detroit Field Office. "The EEOC is pursuing this matter because federal law provides specific protections to members of our workforce who are age 40 or older."

The Detroit Field Office is part of the Indianapolis District Office, which oversees Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, and parts of Ohio. The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment dis­crim­ination.

Summarize the issue(s) presented in the case, identify the relevant EEO laws, and explain why the court ruled as it did. How could the company have prevented this lawsuit in the first place?

Answer 1

In the given case, a candidate who was aged 64 appeared in the interview. During the interview, the plant superintendent asked the candidate about his age and this information was provided by the candidate reluctantly. Plant superintendent commented many times during the interview that the candidate looks younger than his actual age. The candidate was rejected on the basis of a lack of commitment to long term association with the company. The placement agency assured that the candidate will work at least 10 years but no revert was made by the company.

If we look at the provisions of EEOC, there is a clear norm that no discrimination can be done by any candidate on the basis of age, gender, ethnicity, race and so on. In this case, there is a clear violation of the provisions of EEOC as the candidate was asked about his age and was being commented about his mismatched age and looks. Despite giving the assurance of 10 years of work commitment, the candidate was rejected and it is a clear violation of the norms of EEOC.

The court decided the case as there was ample evidence that showed that the candidate was subjected to discrimination on the basis of the age.

In order to safeguard itself from the lawsuit of age discrimination, the company had to show that the basis of the decision for not selecting the candidate was not related to the age but it was based on the employment-related factors and the not matching of the candidate with the given job.