Age Discrimmination filed with Human Relations

lrenoll · January 2002

Well, I was delivered the paperwork yesturday for a face to face hearing with Human Relations. Can't tell you how much that made my day! The charges were filed from an employee we laid off back in May. There were 10 in total who were left go ... mixed combo of men and women,ages from 29 - 55, all different pay levels and all different seniority levels. She claims she was left go because of her age. I love how they always need someone to blame for their problems (sorry, just a little venting!)I've contacted our attorney and also our business liability insurance carrier immediately.

This is my first time with this, so I am sure you can imagine how overwhelming all of this is. I was wondering what else I should be doing if anything. Also, have any of you experienced this before and what can I expect? In the paperwork, they make it seem as if we're already guilty.

Thanks!

WT · January 2002

What were the reasons for the reduction? The best defense against an age discrimination complaint is to show there were sound business reasons for the action taken. Already, age is a broad spectrum in your group. If you present a sound reason for the lay-off, she must show this reason is a pretext and the real reason is discrimination. That is a fairly difficult burden. Aside from this, you must beware of remarks made by yourself or other management persons that could relate to age. Further, have you, or do you intend to replace this person with a younger person? That is a red flag. If the laid off person is not replaced by a younger person, it is harder yet to prove discrimination. So do your homework on business reasons and get ready. Good luck.

Gillian · January 2002

You are correct. The paperwork generally does seem to indicate that the employer is at fault. This is because whoever sent the paperwork has heard only one side of the story. You are being notified as to what is the side of the story from the perspective of your former employee. Now you get to present your side, the agency will evaluate the facts presented from both sides, weigh those facts against the law and make a determination as to whether or not there is "probable cause" that discrimination occured. While some people think that the agencies are biased in favor of employees, it is my experience (only one or two exceptions) that the agencies are really nuetral and are just doing the job that they are there to do.

Sometimes the agencies will rule in favor of the employee because the employer has failed to document the reasons why they took the action, therefore can't prove their side of the story. Then the employer thinks that the agency is biased, when in reality, the employer didn't do their job correctly from a management perspective.

1Harry · January 2002

The best defense is statistics, data, and documentation. Have with you the list of staff laid off, the reason for each lay off, and the age of each. If the layoffs were not based upon seniority, you need to carefully review the basis for each layoff. I would also compile the ages of staff hired over the past 3 years to determine your record in hiring age 40 and older applicants. If the data is in your favor I would use it to show your willingness to hire age 40 and older. It is important to do research prior to the meeting. Usually the hearings are held to resolve the problem. They are more settlement conferences. Each hearing officer has a different method of getting to possible resolution. You could have a formal conference in which both sides are present and the hearing officer obtains information from both sides on the charges. Or there could be an informal conference in which each side is in different rooms and the hearing officer shuttles between the rooms getting information and trying to come to resolution. I believe they are trained to get a resolution if at all possible. Good luck.

JJ · January 2002

I agree with the other responses. I have had a number of these conferences over the years and in the great majority of cases the agency was neutral and interested in hearing both sides. It is important that you be able to document the reasons for selecting the individuals that were terminated. It is in your favor that the list contains both people in the PAG and younger employees as well. By all means be able to show that the company does hire applicants over the age of 40 and has older employees in the current workforce. One area that enforcement agencies always look at in RIF situations is whether or not you have hired to fill the positions vacated in the RIF. If so, did you replace the person with a younger new hire? If you did that, it is a burden that you have to overcome. Basically the company has to show a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating the individual.

Age Discrimmination filed with Human Relations

Comments