Age discrimination at workplace is one of the harder claims to prove in court, because although many employer tried to get rid or not to hire older workers, obtaining proof of such discrimination is often a big challenge. Nevertheless, because the courts are aware of how easy it would be for employers to get away with firing or nor hiring or not promoting older workers, judges heavily rely on circumstantial evidence of discrimination in allowing cases to move forward to trial on age discrimination claims.
For instance, in Shelley v Green (2010), an older employee was not given an opportunity to be promoted while several others, younger ones, were. In making a favorable ruling to the employee, the court took into account a number of facts that suggested that age discrimination might have been involved in the decision not to promote the plaintiff.
First and foremost, the court considered the fact that the managers, who interviewed the potential candidates for promotion, inquired bout the projected retirement dates for employees to be a significant evidence of of potential discrimination, as that suggest that the issue of age was a relevant factor in promotion decisions.
Secondly, the fact that the plaintiff's qualifications were far superior than those who were selected for promotion, suggested to the court that an improper and unlawful discriminatory reason played a role in not selecting the plaintiff for promotion.
The employer argued, among other things, that age bias cannot be inferred from not promoting plaintiff, because other employees of similar age were interviewed for the same promotion. However, the court found that because none of those who were interviewed were actually promoted, that argument was not persuasive.
For instance, in Shelley v Green (2010), an older employee was not given an opportunity to be promoted while several others, younger ones, were. In making a favorable ruling to the employee, the court took into account a number of facts that suggested that age discrimination might have been involved in the decision not to promote the plaintiff.
First and foremost, the court considered the fact that the managers, who interviewed the potential candidates for promotion, inquired bout the projected retirement dates for employees to be a significant evidence of of potential discrimination, as that suggest that the issue of age was a relevant factor in promotion decisions.
Secondly, the fact that the plaintiff's qualifications were far superior than those who were selected for promotion, suggested to the court that an improper and unlawful discriminatory reason played a role in not selecting the plaintiff for promotion.
The employer argued, among other things, that age bias cannot be inferred from not promoting plaintiff, because other employees of similar age were interviewed for the same promotion. However, the court found that because none of those who were interviewed were actually promoted, that argument was not persuasive.
RSS Feed
