As the baby boomers age, workplace discrimination is becoming more and more of an issue. Moreover, in certain tech corridors such as Santa Monica or the 101 tech corridor where there are a lot of high tech workers and workers in the somewhat new biotech industry perceptions of age discrimination are rampant. Many workers over 40 wonder if their work situation is actually age discrimination versus their overactive imagination and fear of growing older. Age discrimination in employment is very real and often subtle.
Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, employers are liable for age discrimination if the employer had 5 or more employees and the employee suing for age discrimination was over 40 when the age discrimination occurred.
Employers are liable for employees attorney fees if they win an age discrimination case. However, our firm takes all discrimination cases on a contingency which means we are not paid unless we collect from the employer. The fact our reputable law firm handled the case generally makes the employer calculate the value of potential reversed attorney fees into a settlement. Accordingly, the employee receives a larger settlement because of the existence of our hard work on their case.
The best age discrimination cases involve nasty comments about a worker’s age. Often these comments amount to actual age harassment. The following comments are obvious examples of an anti-age bias: you are too old, too slow, we need new blood, you do not know such and such technology and she does, you need to dye your hair if you want to make sales calls, you are too old to do such and such, when will you retire, you really should retire, how old are you anyway, how much longer do you really expect to work, you are too old for us to train you. Believe it or not, discrimination attorney Karl Gerber litigated cases in which each of those discriminatory comments were made to his client on the basis of their age.
Nasty age comments along with termination by the same Supervisor who made them could be age discrimination.
Ageist comments coupled with an employment termination by the same supervisor or manager who made the hostile comments about age are the best age discrimination cases. If another person made the decision to terminate the employment, it can become attenuated to prove the person who engaged in age harassment had anything to do with the termination of employment. It can also be difficult to prove age was a motivating factor in the employment termination if the person who made the anti-age comments was over 40 or 50 and/or was close in age to the employee who was discriminated against on the basis of their age.
Age discrimination in employment can be proven with statistics. In a large layoff if large numbers of persons over 40 were laid off that might be enough to prove age discrimination. In a case against a large newspaper, discrimination attorney, Karl Gerber, hired a statistician who determined that by chance it was statistically improbable there would be such a large chance of layoff for persons over 40 and particularly over 50. The layoff decision had to be based upon age over 40 and 50.
Finally, some age discrimination cases involve an older worker being replaced with a younger worker. The fact the younger worker is paid less than the older worker may prove age discrimination. Likewise, a younger worker trained by the older worker who is terminated raises questions about who was more qualified for the job.
Discrimination attorney, Karl Gerber has represented employees in the most difficult age discrimination cases. He has handled cases in which employers tried to argue the person who made the decision to terminate did not know of the ageist remarks and/or was a person other than the employee who made the comments.
We represent employees in all parts of California. In Los Angeles County we have offices in downtown Los Angeles, Gardena, and Sherman Oaks. We also maintain offices in Tustin, Riverside, Oxnard, Bakersfield, San Diego, Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Jose.
Give us 5 minutes and we can help analyze whether your employment termination was based upon age!