iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Age Discrimination Harder To Fight Amid Record Unemployment For Older Workers


First Posted: 09/29/11 02:37 PM ET Updated: 11/29/11 05:12 AM ET

A federal judge dismissed an age discrimination case from 18 former employees of the Dallas Morning News in March, repeatedly citing a recent Supreme Court ruling that increased the burden on older workers to prove they've been treated unfairly.

Jack Gross feels bad about it.

"It personally concerns me that I was somehow involved in denying a lot of other people their chance at justice because my case is now being cited so often," said Gross, a former insurance claims administration manager who lives in Des Moines, Iowa.

When a court says a laid off worker failed to prove age was the overriding cause of his or her termination, the judge points to the Supreme Court's decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Group. Gross had sued for age discrimination following a 2003 demotion. Nearly seven years later, after an Iowa jury had taken his side and awarded damages, the Supreme Court changed the rules and made Gross start over.

The court's decision raised the bar for age discrimination complaints. Instead of having to show that age was a substantial motivating factor in a discriminatory employment decision, plaintiffs from 2009 on have had to prove their age was the decisive factor. The decision effectively required plaintiffs to provide direct evidence they'd been discriminated against, according to Michael Foreman, director of the Civil Rights Appellate Clinic at the Pennsylvania State University law school. Foreman testified before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last year that "the practical impact of Gross is that courts are now requiring plaintiffs to put forward extremely compelling evidence of age bias."

Lower courts have cited Gross hundreds of times in bias cases. AARP, the powerhouse lobbying group for seniors, said it hasn't tracked exactly how often Gross's case has been used to dismiss an age discrimination case, but said it's happened a "significant" number of times. "Even one is too many," said AARP senior attorney Laurie McCann.

Democrats, led by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, drafted so-far unsuccessful legislation to undo the Supreme Court's decision in 2009. Gross's other senator, Republican Chuck Grassley, is not a co-sponsor of the Democratic bill but said he is working on separate legislation.

"Jack Gross continues to be an important advocate against age discrimination," Grassley said in a statement to HuffPost. "I've been working for a legislative remedy that would make changes the Supreme Court decision pointed out are necessary to make sure federal law continues to protect the rights of older workers. As a society, we ought to value older Americans' contribution to the workforce and elsewhere, and the law should actually say what was originally intended."

The Supreme Court's new legal headwinds blew in just as the jobs landscape for older workers started providing less shelter. While workers older than 55 still boast lower unemployment rates than younger workers, older layoff victims are more than twice as likely to be out of work for 99 weeks or longer. Among "displaced workers" separated from long-held jobs between 2007 and 2010, older workers were much less likely to find new jobs. In August, the average unemployed worker older than 55 had been out of work for 52.4 weeks, compared with 43 weeks for workers between 25 and 54 years old.

Age discrimination complaints to the EEOC have increased over the past few years, but not dramatically so in proportion to other types of bias complaints. Dozens and dozens of older unemployed workers have told HuffPost that age discrimination is the unbearably obvious reason for their predicament. None of them could prove it, though.

Gross was 54 and had worked at FBL Financial Group for 16 years when, as part of a merger, in 2003 the company changed his title and gave most of his work duties to a younger staffer whom he previously supervised. He alleged in his suit that several other older workers saw job changes that reduced their pension formulas.

Gross said that as soon as he filed his age discrimination complaint with the EEOC, his work life changed.

"I was on several corporate committees. They immediately took me off of all of those like I was going to go in there and sabotage the computer system or something," Gross said, adding that he became isolated from longtime friends. "I started going off eating by myself in a corner because I didn't want to hurt them. And they knew they were being watched for associations with me. I was persona non grata in my own office."

Tom Eppenauer, who had supervised Gross prior to a personnel reshuffling in 2000, said that in 2003, before he left the company that December, he observed the retaliation Gross described.

"He kept his normal desk, and they simply did not provide him any work activities. They didn't invite him to meetings, even though he had superior knowledge to everyone in the department," Eppenauer told HuffPost. "It's hard to fathom. Here's a very highly educated man, very knowledgeable in that field, and they just threw him in the trash."

In a statement to HuffPost, FBL noted that a judge dismissed Gross's retaliation claim in 2005, and that a jury sided with the company in the new trial that followed the Supreme Court decision.

"FBL Financial Group, Inc.'s policies and values do not tolerate discrimination in any form. The history of Jack's case demonstrates FBL's commitment to these values," the company said. "FBL was completely exonerated, Jack was even ordered by the judge to pay FBL's court costs. FBL trusts the media to take into account the legal history of what Jack has claimed versus what he has been able to demonstrate."

Gross said he stuck with the job doing basically nothing until he retired in 2009. Last year he started drawing early Social Security benefits. Now, he said, he spends a lot of time with his grandchildren.

"I haven't really looked for work because I've felt like I've burned bridges," he said. And even if he did search for a new job, he doesn't think he could find one because nobody wants to hire a guy in his 60s. "It's all anecdotal, you can't prove a thing, but I've sure got an awful lot of friends who've been dramatically hurt by this. If they find jobs –- they're college educated people -- they're getting part time jobs as janitors. They can't find anything that’s full time with health benefits. They're just not there. And I'm in a state with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country."

Mike Sacks contributed reporting.

Arthur Delaney is the author of "A People's History of the Great Recession," HuffPost's first e-book.

Earlier on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
A federal judge dismissed an age discrimination case from 18 former employees of the Dallas Morning News in March, repeatedly citing a recent Supreme Court ruling that increased the burden on older wo...
A federal judge dismissed an age discrimination case from 18 former employees of the Dallas Morning News in March, repeatedly citing a recent Supreme Court ruling that increased the burden on older wo...
A federal judge dismissed an age discrimination case from 18 former employees of the Dallas Morning News in March, repeatedly citing a recent Supreme Court ruling that increased the burden on older wo...
A federal judge dismissed an age discrimination case from 18 former employees of the Dallas Morning News in March, repeatedly citing a recent Supreme Court ruling that increased the burden on older wo...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 428
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rockysparks
there's no law against being annoying.
06:45 PM on 10/04/2011
The current U.S. Supreme Court is composed of some of the most corrupt and contemptible justices in the history of our nation, and this case is just one more proof of it.

Can you spell a four letter word meaning "rodent"?

R as in Roberts
A as in Alito
T as in Thomas
S as in Scalia
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:45 PM on 09/30/2011
Eyup! Raise that retirement age even more because those in the work place over 50 have it so easy, and for them, finding a job is a snap!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
afgail
Wise and strong.
12:27 PM on 09/30/2011
With Republicans threatening to extend Social Security retirement eligibility, Americans will be required to work past 67 years of age. Coupled with the shortened lifespan in the USA, the GOP is creating a perfect storm for making Social Security an empty promise. The GOP war on our senior citizens is disgusting.
photo
Absolute
Teacher and Old-School Liberal
11:11 AM on 09/30/2011
Do not get old in America. And by old I mean 40, because that is when age discrimination becomes a factor.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
stargazer13
To Love One Is To Love All
10:29 AM on 09/30/2011
Not enough jobs to go around !

the hard evidence is all around us at this point !
Elders and young having a very hard time finding work !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Burke
Author of Journey Home
09:22 AM on 09/30/2011
...and no one on Wall Street is going to jail - good work America - you're basically a f'up spoiled kid without any sense
photo
Absolute
Teacher and Old-School Liberal
01:59 PM on 09/30/2011
faved

America is a mean kid who likes spreading fear.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Charles Queen
I am a disabled nam vet
01:32 AM on 09/30/2011
I can understand an age limit for retirement.They raised it along time ago from 55 to whatever it is now in the 60/s.The thing about all of this is that they have to make room for younger people to get their chance to enter th job market and get their careers started etc and raising the retirement age higher is going to keep the next generation from working.I mean the cycle has to keep going otherwise you'r going to be stuck with millions out of work.I'm to old to get back into the job market and I also can't due to work related injury's and military related injury's etc.Ya,I literaly hate not being able to work,I loved it myself but I also realize that there are others(younger) waiting in line for their chances to start working and the only way thats going to happpne is to keep the cycle going
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
01:58 AM on 09/30/2011
I don't think this is really about people over age 65 working, but, with this recession and with threats against Social Security and Medicare, many people who are over 65 NEED to work. The issue is that there are so many people in the 50+ or 45+ age groups who really need to work and they cannot find work, or they cannot find decent-paying work.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Charles Queen
I am a disabled nam vet
02:14 AM on 09/30/2011
Very good point.They sent letters out to those on SSI here in KY who use medicare that they will not have to pay a 10 dollar co-pay for every visit to their doctrs and a 50 dollar co-pay for hospital care.These people on SSI don't have that kind of money to throw out every time they need to be seen by their doctors etc.Their even going to slap a 10 co-pay on them if they call in a prescription say for an antibiotic etc.Thats going to far I think.Their killing the lower class is what their doing.They know fullly well that these people do not have that kind of money especially considering all their getting is 6 humdred and some dollars a month and that at amounts keeps them from getting food stamps to.How do they expect these people to survive,now their wanting to cut heating assistance as well.Do they want these people to freeeze when winter sets in?.It's definitely not right by any means
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
henrypapillon
Put a Psychiatrist in every NRA meeting.
09:47 AM on 09/30/2011
There is no age limit except for certain public judgeships.
01:20 AM on 09/30/2011
The Supreme Court should no longer be Called the Supreme Court, it should be called the we'll do everything we can to turn our backs on the American People and rule for Business and the Wealthy Court. We've finally gotten the Highest Law in tthe Land bought and paid for by the Wealthy. Thank you Judges Scalia, Thomas, Alito and most of all to Judge Kennedy great job in overturning Campaign Finance Reform. I still hold out hope Judge Roberts will come over from the Dark Side. Judge Roberts I feel there is still good in you, my son.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stacknef
well,,, glad thats over with! Forward!
12:33 AM on 09/30/2011
This reminds me of the Reagan years when PhDs were driving cabs too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SithWillRiseAgain
Allegiance to the Liberal flag
11:38 PM on 09/29/2011
Is anyone else having trouble posting? I'm testing this post. Thanks for your understanding.....
photo
Absolute
Teacher and Old-School Liberal
11:09 AM on 09/30/2011
I am.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
plaidsportcoat
11:16 PM on 09/29/2011
In Americas if you don't have a job you're branded lazy - no matter what, even in Great Depression 2.
If you don't have aptitude for high-paying jobs, you are labelled lazy in America.
If you inherited all your wealth you aren't labelled lazy.
09:18 PM on 09/29/2011
High unemployment, difficulty for older persons in finding re-employment; talk of raising the retirement age. Perhaps younger full retirement is necessary, at least until we discover a way to refrain from job exportation as our primary national product.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lezahgg
10:22 AM on 09/30/2011
I agree with you. It strikes me as very contradictory that older people are the ones who are unemployed the longest and there is talk about raising the retirement age. I believe that age discrimination is always going to exist for a number of reasons. What raising the retirement age will do will stretch out the period of time between unemployment and social security for workers hovering around age 60.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chatnuptime1
The Wolf's Den.
08:36 PM on 09/29/2011
Well it is not just about age but experience. Starting over in a new job bringing with you long work history and knowhow scares poeple that think you could be qualified to take their jobs. Plus there is also the health benifit load. Older workers may be assumed to have expensive health issues. Disabled workers certainly do. Company's aren't in the mood to spend more on a new employee in terms of health benefits for a shorter time in employement then they would younger workers, that will spend a longer time working for them. Unlike carreer jobs like the Judges in the Supreme court that stay till they drop with no worries of layoffs the rest of us have to compete with younger workers in job market. Often we loose.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
08:34 PM on 09/29/2011
When they layoff, employers should retain the hardest-working, most cost-efficient workers. Which generally are the young workers. Paying more based on years of experience rather than actual productivity discriminates against the young. How do you like them apples?

I'm 61, retired from high tech. Got out before I was thrown out like everybody else I know. I was an R&D software engineer, worked for a lot of the big boys. One guy told me I was the oldest coder he knew. I was 50, and certainly the oldest "individual contributor" I knew. Everybody else went to staff or management, became useless but I couldn't stomach it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
08:52 PM on 09/29/2011
Sorry, but I've seen many situations in which the more productive person was clearly the older person who wasn't texting, updating Facebook, crying in the bathroom because she had been dissed or broken up with her boyfriend, etc. I'm not saying that all younger workers are less hard working than older workers, but it varies with the individual. If you are looking with someone wiht endurance for 60 hour weeks, then you may choose younger workers.. But why should anybody work a 60 hour week? How did we wind up going backwards?

Now quite sure what your point is. That you are somehow superior to others your age?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
09:41 PM on 09/29/2011
Of course, I agree. My point is, if you make your decision based solely on merit, it will often look like age discrimination. Older employees are better paid and often less motivated. And in high-tech often have more obsolete skills. Think Wally :-)
09:20 PM on 09/29/2011
Cost-efficient is certainly the case, from a salary/benefits perspective. More productive? That's highly arguable and arbitrary.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
09:37 PM on 09/29/2011
Of course it is. But once you throw in age discrimination, it's not arbitrary at all. You decide in favor of the older worker, which is just what teacher's unions enforce: "last-in first-out", retain those with seniority regardless of merit. That's unfair to the young workers.
07:53 PM on 09/29/2011
I guess it is very easy for the members of the Supreme Court to take such a position and get this one wrong as they will never have to apply for another job as long as they live-talk about being far removed…