The EEOC, in recent rulings, appears to have completely subverted the stated goal of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which is to insure the most qualified candidate gets the job.
When former President Lyndon Johnson signed the ADEA fifty years ago, qualifications referred to criteria that were largely capable of objective measurement, like education, experience and achievement.
In August, the director of the Office of Federal Operations, Carlton M. Hadden, Jr., issued at least two decisions finding no discrimination in cases where highly-qualified applicants were passed over for much younger applicants with far few objective qualifications.
Hadden ruled that a white male police detective, 48, with 20 years of high-level experience in law enforcement, failed to show he was more qualified for the position of lead police officer at the Dallas veteran’s medical center than a female African-American in her 20s whose experience was limited to a stint in the Army military police. Hadden said the female candidate “arguably has more experience in the intangible areas sought by the (hiring panel), such as poise, compassion, leadership, and the ability to cope with stress …”
Hadden ignored the significance of procedural irregularities in the hiring process because, he said, the complainant didn’t prove the veteran’s center intended to discriminate when it failed to follow its own regulations and the union’s Collective Bargaining Agreement in the hiring process.
The second case is eerily similar. Again, Hadden and the EEOC ignore objective qualifications and serious procedural irregularities.
In the second case, Hadden ruled the Social Security Administration (SSA) did not discriminate when it’s hiring officer failed to consider objective qualifications in filling five attorney vacancies at a new SSA office opening in Reno NV. The hiring officer initially chose five attorneys under the age of 40, including some recent law school graduates. The hiring officer acknowledged the complainant, a 60-year-old female, had superior objective qualifications compared to most, if not all, of the successful applicants.
Hadden again ignored the significance of serious procedural irregularities in the hiring process. He acknowledged that SSA attorneys illegally interfered in the investigation of the woman’s complaint but made no inferences from their actions. He wrote: “Participants in EEO investigations should be assured that they can give candid, truthful responses to investigators. Consequently, we urge the Agency to henceforth avoid actions that might create the appearance that it is influencing employees’ responses to EEO investigation.”
The EEOC said employers could ignore the objective qualifications of a white police officer, 48, and a female attorney, 60, but not a 42-year-old female weather caster.
In these rulings, the EEOC seems to place absolutely no importance on objective qualifications so it was ironic when, earlier this month, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against a group of CBS television stations in Dallas, TX, accusing it of engaging in age discrimination in hiring . The EEOC charged that CBS engaged in age discrimination when it failed to consider the superior qualifications of a 42-year-old female weather caster and instead hired a 24-year-old woman with far less experience.
Of course, a major difference between the CBS lawsuit and the EEOC decisions is that the CBS case involves the private sector. Apparently, the EEOC is holding the private sector up to a higher standard than it applies to the federal government, which is the nation’s largest employer. The EEOC is effectively enabling discriminatory practices by federal agencies.
For years, the EEOC has neglected rampant age discrimination in hiring in the United States. In 2016, the EEOC received more than 20,000 complaints of age discrimination but filed only TWO lawsuits with “age discrimination claims.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce taunted the EEOC last year for operating a hiring program that has a clear disparate, discriminatory impact on older workers.
Where is the oversight?
U.S. Senate and Congressional committees have done nothing in more than a decade to insure the fair treatment of older workers who are victims of age discrimination. Indeed, they have neglected since 2009 to pass the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, which would make it slightly easier for age discrimination victims to sue in federal court.
Former President Barack Obama made the problem of age discrimination much worse when he issued an executive order in 2010 allowing federal agencies to hire recent graduates, the vast majority of whom are under the age of 40. It is estimated that older workers have been prevented from applying for tens of thousands of federal jobs as a result of Obama’s order.
Meanwhile, the AARP,. which purports to advocate for older Americans, has had no appreciable impact on age discrimination in hiring, while it reaps billions from lucrative licensing deals that exploit its 37 million membership base.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Woo Hoo!