Age Discrimination Case Summary

Mr. Zimpfer has taken legal action against Palm Beach County and these allegations cannot be dismissed. The complaint was filed with the EECO in a timely manner and the EECO will more than likely take action against Palm Beach County unless the county can provide solid evidence that Mr. Merriman was more qualified for the position. Mr. Zimpfer did exactly what he should do by hiring a legal representative who asked a qualified, unbiased psychologist to review all applicants and make a professional decision on who was the best candidate. Dr. Joseph’s findings favor Mr. Zimpfer, which makes Mr. Zimpfer’s allegations more evident, which stated that Palm Beach County did discriminate against him because of his age.

The county should be sure that they govern themselves by the laws that have been put in place to protect against any type of discrimination. The county should also make sure that their Human Resources Department and their hiring managers know and have a great understanding of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects employees over 40 years of age. This Act was put in place to protect these individuals from decisions based on their age, and other things such as hiring, discharge, promotion and other employment privileges.

Based on the documents presented in the case showing Mr.Zimpfer qualifications compared to all the applicants that applied for the position including the candidate that was selected, the county should settle the case and offer a reasonable payout to Mr. Zimpfer. They also need to take measures to prevent this going forward by improving their human resources process in hiring and promoting candidates. Not only is it illegal to discriminate against current and future employees but it will also cost them

Employees over the age of 40 are protected under law from discrimination under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 967 (ADEA). However, that does not change the beliefs of some organizations that employees over the age of 40 are not as beneficial or productive as those younger than the age of 40.

Considering the case is being filed due to police officers and public safety dispatchers over the age of 40 filed suit pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and are complaining of the “disparate impact” of the award. I feel they have a case considering the age discrimination definition by the ADEA and FCRA. The City of Tampa would be held responcibile for the prima facie evidence because employment records would state the employees age and the start date of employment along with promotions and raise.

To improve my situation of discrimination, I began to research my rights. According to Hillier and Barrow (2011), The 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits the following: failing to hire a

In 2004, Jack Gross, was demoted from his senior level high paying job at FBL Financial Group, Inc. That year the small claims court of circuit eight granted Mr. Gross 46,945 dollars for age related discrimination. Then in the fall of 2009 the US Federal court of appeals conducted a federal review. The appellate court found that the jury did not have proper instructions, and found that the plaintiff did not submit direct evidence. So, the court reconvened. Then with modifications to Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) FBL was found not guilty. What is most relevant now is there have been modification to ADEA. While a judgment has not occurred yet, the exploration of the sitting evidence and the other relation to other like cases

"We conclude that Baker has presented a submissible case of age discrimination for determination by a jury. Most significant are statements of Lindsey and Thomas, who participated in the decision to terminate Baker, evincing a preference for the employment of younger workers over persons in the class protected by the ADEA. Lindsey's statement to his management team that Silver Oak was 'missing the boat by not hiring more younger, vibrant people,' and that employees 'should start looking over applications better and try to consider hiring younger people' is evidence that a reasonable jury could take to reflect a discriminatory attitude by one who participated in Baker's termination. A jury likewise could find that Thomas's attitude

According to this case, employers should be concerned enough about the avoiding of discrimination in all of the employment decisions. The plaintiff in this case is a female attorney, Gallina, who is the associate in the law firm. The problem here began when the news of her having the baby reached her employer. This incident raised only after the news reached the employer and not when she started working for the company. As soon as her employer found out the case, he started treated her badly with unusually harsh language. According to law, employers should exercise care I the decision relating to the employees who have filed charges or even filed a case against discrimination. Employers also should exercise care and caution in their language

The effect of age discrimination which was debatable, has now become more controversial. The substantial influence of this discrimination has sparked the controversy over the potential impact of this trend in recent years. It can be said that being bias based on age is unfair. This will elaborate both positive and negative effect of age discrimination and will thus lead to the logical conclusion.

* The immediate supervisor told David that “Jason is going to places in this Company”.

Just for the fact that Mr. Zimpfer requires all the knowledge, skill, abilities and above all, 16 years of experience it’s evident that he was a victim of discrimination. MR. Brad Merriman, on the other hand, has less experience than Mr. Zimpfer; nevertheless, Mr. Merriman was hired for the position of employee relations manager. Besides the differences in experiences favoring Mr. Zimpfer, the only differences that may favor Mr. Merriman was his age. According to the case, Mr. Zimpfer was 52 years old when he applied for the position; meanwhile, Mr. Merriman was only 32 years old.“The ADEA prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of age against persons over forty. Its purpose is to promote employment of older persons based on their

Based on the information provided, Mr. Zimpfer was not a victim of illegal age discrimination according to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and case law. The ADEA states that it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, which includes the hiring and firing process. Mr. Zimpfer feels as though he was discriminated against solely on age, and the burden lies on him to prove that no other factor besides age, prevented him from being hired. In this situation, the data provided does not indicate that age was a factor in the analysis. Although the data does reflect disparities, as there is a 9 point difference between Mr. Zimpfer and Mr. Merriman’s results, age was not the determinative factor in the decision.

This argument basically says that because the person doesn’t know anyone who voted for a guy. Then he should not have one. We could ask how many friends this person has my guess is that he has in the range of 15 or so. This leaves us with the fact that he made hasty generalization.

Preceding few decades have witnessed an unprecedented surge in the cases of biasing in the workplace due to age discrimination.Despite the fact that criticizers contend that younger as well as dynamic people should be preferred over the older employees,I have the firm belief that any bias or prejudice regard to age,sex and religion should be made illegitimate.A thorough analysis of the subject matter will aid us to scrutinize all the aspects comprehensively.