Published in Pawtucket Times on March 25, 2002

In 1983, my 70-year-old father expressed his concerns about job hunting in his senior years.

Like many at his age, he was not considering retirement but was seeking a new professional challenge. He began to put out feelers for new employment while still being employed by a Dallas, Texas-based retail chain after m ore than 40 years of service.

They won’t hire me if they find out my age,” my father staid, adding that he believed that job experience gleaned from years of employment is not valued by many in corporate America.

Sadly, my father’s fears of age discrimination expressed to me years ago is still documented today by the federal government.

Last year, more than 20 percent of the 80,840 discrimination complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against private-sector employers were related to age discrimination.

Last week, the Supreme Court jumped into the age discrimination debate and will determine whether seniors have the same legal rights as other types of discrimination claim suits do.

Layoffs at the Florida Power Corporation during a series of reorganizations led to the termination of Wanda Adams and 116 older workers.

More than 70 precent of these persons were at least 40 years old or older. A lawsuit, Adams vs. Florida Power Corp. was filed, claiming the Florida-based corporation discriminated against older workers based on their age in violation of the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Under the 1967 federal statute, older workers must not be treated differently than younger workers because of their age.

The 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta affirmed the trial court’s decision that older workers could challenge their termination by proving that their employer’s action had a discriminatory motive or intent (disparate treatment) rather than a disproportionate impact (disparate impact) on older workers.  AARP believes that this court ruling would make age bias suits tougher to prove, giving employers a greater ability to trim their payrolls of older workers.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court is posed to consider a hot judicial issue, especially one that will impact millions of employed aging baby boomers.

AARP, a Washington, DC-based aging advocacy group that represents more than 35 million members, has filed a “friend of the court brief” showing that its support of disproportionate impact, for use in proving age discrimination suits.

The nonprofit group says that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that these types of suits are allowed under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to prove discrimination based on an employee’s gender, religion or race.

AARP official Laurie McCann states that if the U.S. Supreme Court supports AARP’s legal position, then older workers can win suits by not having to show employer’s intent to discriminate.

“Older employees will always find it hard to prove intent, because it’s difficult to get inside the employer’s head to get evidence as to what they are thinking.”

McCann says oral arguments were heard on March 20, and the justices ruling should be expected to the end of June.

“We will explore  the possibility of a legislative fix,” she adds, “to allow older workers to prove age bias if they’ll company’s practices and policies has a disproportionate impact on older workers.”

Adds AARP State Director Kathleen Connell, “Once unemployed older workers face sharply limited employment opportunities, re-employment after job loss declines dramatically at older ages.

“Older workers have a fundamental right to work in an environment free of age discrimination,” she says. “Age discrimination can be blatant or subtle and can include such practices as refusing to hire or promote older workers, encouraging their retirement, targeting them in reductions in force, curtailing their employee benefits on liming their training opportunities job responsibilities and duties.”

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules to make age bias suits tougher to prove, then aging baby boomers will continue to face the same concerns of my father’s generation – that age discrimination runs rampant throughout corporate America.

When reviewing the merits of the Adams case, it is hope that the justices will see the wisdom of giving older workers the same legal clout as women, minorities, gays and religious persons. Courts have allowed these groups to legally challenge racial, sexual or religious discrimination on the grounds that an employer’s actions had a disproportionate impact on them.

It’s time to protect older workers, too. It’s only fair.