Who gets fired first, older or younger people?
In a piece titled With Jobs Scarce, Age Becomes an Issue , Dana Mattioli suggests that younger workers, not older workers, may bear the brunt of reductions-in-force during the current economic downturn. Various lawyers are quoted:
Age-discrimination lawsuits brought by older workers can cost more than the salary of the worker who was laid off and can hurt the company's reputation, according to Andria Ryan, partner at Atlanta law firm Fisher & Phillips LLP.
"Younger people, in general are a lot less of a risk [for lawsuits] when you do a reduction in force," says Ms. Ryan. While most states protect employees 40 and older from age discrimination, only a handful of jurisdictions extend this protection to employees as young as 18, she says.
As an initial point, the "cost" of a worker is a lot more than the worker's salary. However, the comparison of the cost of the lawsuit to the cost of the salary was of interest. Of the "company's reputation," people have short memories. For example, Exxon Corporate Research Labs terminated half its research scientists in 1986. The event was scarcely noted in the press, and did nothing to prevent Exxon from hiring workers later. One related event was that many of the terminated employees tried to obtain a job offered by a different Exxon company, and the scramblings about that "wired" job make interesting reading.
Refer to In the Matter of Exxon Chemical Company (on behalf of Dickakian), 87-INA-615 AND see On Gold-Plating Patents, which article noted:
Through a post on the internet [www.oalj.dol.gov/public/ina/decsn/1987_00615.ina.pdf], I became aware on March 2, 2001 of a Department of Labor/Board of Alien Labor Certification case in 1987 peripherally involving me. The case for denying employer’s application for alien labor certification is far stronger than indicated, because of omission of numerous facts. [see “You can’t know it when you can’t see it,” p. 22, IPT (April 2001)]
In that particular case, a large U.S. corporation had terminated 50% of its scientists in its basic research laboratory, but denied several of them the opportunity to compete with a foreign worker for a single position in one of its applied laboratories.
[The story of Charles Scouten, who interviewed for the position, is of great interest, not only on its merits alone, but also to theme asserted by Mattioli.]
Returning to the concept of reputation, a certain patent law firm once rescinded ALL of its summer offers, and there was some discussion of that incident at the time. But who remembers now? Does any reader of IPBiz recall which patent firm it was?
Mattioli also wrote:
While younger workers tend to earn the lowest salaries, making them the least-expensive workers to retain, companies are becoming wary of laying off older, better-paid workers. In fact, Gerald Maatman, co-chairman of the class-action litigation practice at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, which represents employers, says he has been fielding more inquiries about laying off younger workers than in years past, especially from companies in states like New Jersey and Michigan that have laws to protect workers as young as 18. Age-discrimination lawsuits brought by older workers can cost more than the salary of the worker who was laid off and can hurt the company's reputation, according to Andria Ryan, partner at Atlanta law firm Fisher & Phillips LLP.
"Younger people, in general are a lot less of a risk [for lawsuits] when you do a reduction in force," says Ms. Ryan. While most states protect employees 40 and older from age discrimination, only a handful of jurisdictions extend this protection to employees as young as 18, she says.
"Companies don't like [layoffs by seniority], but [they're] also the easiest to defend," says Gerald Hathaway, co-chairman of the business-restructuring practice group with employment law firm Littler Mendelson. "If you have a bona fide seniority system it's a defense for any type of discrimination," according to the law, he adds.
(...)
Svetlana Gelman, 24, worked in the marketing department of a law firm until December when she was laid off. She feels strongly that her age and the fact that she doesn't have a family to support put her at greater risk before the layoff. Ms. Gelman says she was competing head-to-head with another employee with a child, who was hired a few months after Ms. Gelman and often would use her sacrifices as a parent to tout her dedication to the firm. "The person was very tactical, she would bring the child in, spoke about him all the time and would say things like 'My child is sick but I'm still here,' " says Ms. Gelman.
And as work became more scarce and layoffs loomed, Ms. Gelman says she was let go while her colleague remained, despite the fact that Ms. Gelman earned less and often worked longer hours because of her co-worker's child-care responsibilities.
IPBiz notes that Andria Ryan, partner at Atlanta law firm Fisher & Phillips LLP got plugged TWICE in the article.
Age-discrimination lawsuits brought by older workers can cost more than the salary of the worker who was laid off and can hurt the company's reputation, according to Andria Ryan, partner at Atlanta law firm Fisher & Phillips LLP.
"Younger people, in general are a lot less of a risk [for lawsuits] when you do a reduction in force," says Ms. Ryan. While most states protect employees 40 and older from age discrimination, only a handful of jurisdictions extend this protection to employees as young as 18, she says.
As an initial point, the "cost" of a worker is a lot more than the worker's salary. However, the comparison of the cost of the lawsuit to the cost of the salary was of interest. Of the "company's reputation," people have short memories. For example, Exxon Corporate Research Labs terminated half its research scientists in 1986. The event was scarcely noted in the press, and did nothing to prevent Exxon from hiring workers later. One related event was that many of the terminated employees tried to obtain a job offered by a different Exxon company, and the scramblings about that "wired" job make interesting reading.
Refer to In the Matter of Exxon Chemical Company (on behalf of Dickakian), 87-INA-615 AND see On Gold-Plating Patents, which article noted:
Through a post on the internet [www.oalj.dol.gov/public/ina/decsn/1987_00615.ina.pdf], I became aware on March 2, 2001 of a Department of Labor/Board of Alien Labor Certification case in 1987 peripherally involving me. The case for denying employer’s application for alien labor certification is far stronger than indicated, because of omission of numerous facts. [see “You can’t know it when you can’t see it,” p. 22, IPT (April 2001)]
In that particular case, a large U.S. corporation had terminated 50% of its scientists in its basic research laboratory, but denied several of them the opportunity to compete with a foreign worker for a single position in one of its applied laboratories.
[The story of Charles Scouten, who interviewed for the position, is of great interest, not only on its merits alone, but also to theme asserted by Mattioli.]
Returning to the concept of reputation, a certain patent law firm once rescinded ALL of its summer offers, and there was some discussion of that incident at the time. But who remembers now? Does any reader of IPBiz recall which patent firm it was?
Mattioli also wrote:
While younger workers tend to earn the lowest salaries, making them the least-expensive workers to retain, companies are becoming wary of laying off older, better-paid workers. In fact, Gerald Maatman, co-chairman of the class-action litigation practice at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, which represents employers, says he has been fielding more inquiries about laying off younger workers than in years past, especially from companies in states like New Jersey and Michigan that have laws to protect workers as young as 18. Age-discrimination lawsuits brought by older workers can cost more than the salary of the worker who was laid off and can hurt the company's reputation, according to Andria Ryan, partner at Atlanta law firm Fisher & Phillips LLP.
"Younger people, in general are a lot less of a risk [for lawsuits] when you do a reduction in force," says Ms. Ryan. While most states protect employees 40 and older from age discrimination, only a handful of jurisdictions extend this protection to employees as young as 18, she says.
"Companies don't like [layoffs by seniority], but [they're] also the easiest to defend," says Gerald Hathaway, co-chairman of the business-restructuring practice group with employment law firm Littler Mendelson. "If you have a bona fide seniority system it's a defense for any type of discrimination," according to the law, he adds.
(...)
Svetlana Gelman, 24, worked in the marketing department of a law firm until December when she was laid off. She feels strongly that her age and the fact that she doesn't have a family to support put her at greater risk before the layoff. Ms. Gelman says she was competing head-to-head with another employee with a child, who was hired a few months after Ms. Gelman and often would use her sacrifices as a parent to tout her dedication to the firm. "The person was very tactical, she would bring the child in, spoke about him all the time and would say things like 'My child is sick but I'm still here,' " says Ms. Gelman.
And as work became more scarce and layoffs loomed, Ms. Gelman says she was let go while her colleague remained, despite the fact that Ms. Gelman earned less and often worked longer hours because of her co-worker's child-care responsibilities.
IPBiz notes that Andria Ryan, partner at Atlanta law firm Fisher & Phillips LLP got plugged TWICE in the article.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 6:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home