is there age discrimination?

dynamite9551

there are two "managers" one (exterior) one interior. Both have 30+ years w/company and both are earning decent$$$. New management now on board. Two managers offered "shift supervisor" positions (same salary) or bye-bye. No job descriptions provided - "learn as you go or as you are told". Also, now after all these years, the two managers are getting the crap schedules that no one (including the younger and newer managers ever get). These two are also the same employees that have to make concessions in their schedules to accommodate other employees and managers but when these employees want to scheduled vacation are told - sorry not convenient for you.

Is this typical? what say the experts???

rad

My knee jerk reaction is to say, yes, absolutely, especially if they can prove that employees under 40 were not given the same conditions of employment. From the EEOC website:

Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment

Here's the link:

[url]http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html[/url]

Parabeagle

I'd feel pretty comfortable initiating a complaint under these circumstances. Curious - How old is the new management? Are they more "youthful" than the employees in question? Have any remarks been made (or inferences) that younger blood is needed, etc.? Who is getting the preferred schedules? Are those employees younger? Have their previous managerial positions been filled by younger employees or just eliminated? Not getting vacation date preferences: Is your policy that preferred vacation dates are awarded based on seniority? All questions you may want to ask yourself before moving forward.

dynamite9551

new management is younger. not sure about "remarks". the younger employees, e.g., employees, other supervisors, managers, etc. are not being made to accommodate their vacations. most other positions have been merged or eliminated. no new policies have been issued and to date, can't locate a policy manual (as far as i know).

Hunter1

Don't claim to be an expert, but I'd say we don't know enough about the situation to make a call. Did the new management go out of their way to create new positions so that these two individuals could retain a position with the company? Has enough time elapsed to see a pattern of treating these individuals differently or worse than others? Are these two the only individuals 'over 40', or are there others who have fared better under the new management? Lots of questions would need to be answered before I'd jump to the conclusion that there was discrimination.

dynamite9551

from what i've been told - these two managers were advised that their jobs were changing - this was their new titles - and they needed an answere immediately about whether or not they would take the position. they were not given the time to go home and think on an answer.

SandiF

Maybe new management is trying to get rid of prior supervisors in order to bring in their own team. Maybe new management knows that these managers won't, or haven't, complained - they need the job.

Crout

What was the reason given for the restructuring? Were any other EE's effected?

Don D

Lot's of room for conjecture. I agree with Hunter1's immediate assessment. Even if the new management is moving forward in a stupid fashion or is stumbling and bumbling through a poorly thought out game plan, unless it can be shown that he is doing it for apparent reasons related to their ages or it disparately affects only those over 40, the law will allow him to be a poor manager. I think it is reasonable for some first hand observer to take careful notes from all angles over a period of time, say a couple of months. After that time it will be up to the manager to show that he made such decisions for reasons other than age. Guesswork is meaningless, but my guess is the young manager has a mindset to clean house of the old folks and get an energetic bunch of young blood in place.....and he will be found out.

System

The EEOC says that there must be a valid business reason for making an adverse employment decision for people in protected classes. The employer has to prove the business need and that age had nothing to do with it.

Active employees are reluctant to contact the EEOC because they believe their employer will find a reason to get rid of them - sometimes that's true. It's called retaliation (or constructive discharge), and that, too, is illegal.

"Sam"