Discriminating On the Basis of Age - Case Study Example

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulation (2006) will stop employers from discriminating in the basis of age Table of Contents Chapter One - Introduction a. Reasons for choice of the specific topic b. Aims and objectives of the research c. Research methodology Chapter Two – Background/ Literature Review Chapter Three – Findings Chapter Four – Analysis of results Chapter Five – Conclusions and Recommendations References Cases/ Statutes Chapter One - Introduction a. Reasons for choice of the specific topic The particular topic has been chosen because of its important for employees across Britain. Although this country is characterized by a well developed network of legal principles referring to the protection of employees from the possible violation of their rights, it is a common place that in many cases employers do not respect the rights their employees but instead they try to impose their personal attitudes on the workplace no matter if the consequences for the employees will be severe. This behaviour could be characterized as absolutely unjustified especially when employees are not given the chance to develop their competencies but they are treated unfairly especially regarding other employees, younger in age. b. Aims and objectives of the research In the above context, current research focuses on the examination and the evaluation of all the circumstances related with the age discrimination in the workplace with a special reference to Britain where the Employment Equality (Age) Regulation of 2006 had been implemented in order to stop employers from discriminating. At the same time, the particular aspects of the phenomenon of age discrimination are going to be presented – always with a special reference to UK. The reasons for the appearance and the development of the above phenomenon are going to be investigated in order to formulate a valid assumption whether the laws implemented recently in UK (in 2006 as stated above) have been effective in accordance with their mission. c. Research methodology The research methodology used in current paper can be divided in two parts: in the first part (which refers to the literature review) the views of researchers regarding the subject under examination are presented trying to incorporate all necessary elements for the explanation of the appearance and the development of age discrimination in the workplace. In the second part (findings of the research) relevant cases are being presented in order to evaluate the effectiveness of relevant legal framework in UK regarding the protection of the rights of employees, especially in cases of age discrimination. These findings as well as the literature review presented in the Second Chapter are going to be discussed in the Analysis Section which will lead to the final Conclusion over the issue of age discrimination and the effectiveness of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulation 2006. Chapter Two – Background/ Literature Review In order to understand the reasons for the existence of age discrimination in the workplace, we should primarily examine the particular aspects of discrimination as they can be observed in the various social activities. In this context, it has been supported by Colella et al. (2005, 2) that “discrimination in its most general form is the differentiation among persons for the purpose of making decisions about those individuals and can occur on the basis of legitimate factors (e.g., merit or potential to perform a job)”. The above definition refers to the discrimination in general without a specific reference to the workplace. In the area of employment relationships, discrimination can have many forms in accordance with the principles of the particular enterprise and the personal attitudes of the employer (or the manager of the human resources department) who have the power to impose specific criteria of evaluation of the employees’ performance as well as their ‘suitability’ for a particular task. In this context, employer can present a different behaviour to the firm’s employees based on his/ her personal attitudes. This behaviour – discriminatory – can present several aspects, like “the formal procedures used not only in selection, appraisal, compensation, placement, promotion, training, and working conditions but also in the more informal and subtle forms of discrimination, such as social exclusion” (Collela et al., 2005, 2). However, it should be noticed that the above behaviour although justified at a first place due to the existence of the employers right to act free regarding the ‘structuring’ and the operation of their enterprise, they are specific legal provisions that prohibit such behaviour and provide the relevant ‘punishment’ for the employers that applied a discriminatory behaviour within their enterprise. The identification of age discrimination should be considered as a challenging task. In many cases, the existence of ‘different’ behaviour towards specific employees is explained as a ‘random’ phenomenon with no particular importance for the performance of the workplace. However, discrimination – in all its forms – should be measured with accuracy in any case even if turbulences are going to take place within the workplace because of this initiative. For this reason, Kadane et al. (2004, 182) supported that “the common method for measuring discrimination involves a comparison of some aggregate statistic for protected and non-protected individuals; this approach is open to question when employment decisions are made over an extended time period”. Actually, age discrimination can take place for a long time within a particular workplace until the employee address to the relevant authorities for support. The evaluation of the phenomenon of age discrimination cannot be completed without the presentation and the analysis of ‘ageism’ as a criterion for the existence of age discrimination. In this context, Noon et al. (2001, 157) refer to a relevant definition given by Butler et al. (1973, 9) according to which: “Ageism can be seen as a process of systematic stereotyping of and discrimination against people because they are old, just as racism and sexism accomplish this for skin colour and gender. Old people are categorised as senile, rigid in thought and manner, old fashioned in morality and skills. . . Ageism allows the younger generations to see older people as different from themselves, thus they subtly cease to identify with their elders as human beings”. The above definition can effectively explain the reasons of the importance of age for the performance of an employee. More specifically, in accordance with this definition, the employee’s performance is expected to be ‘decreased’ throughout the years. In this case, the ‘discriminatory’ behaviour of the employer could be possibly explained, however the latter should have take all necessary measures in order to ensure that the rights of the employees in his/ her enterprise will continue to be protected even after their presence in the company for a significant period of time. Towards this direction, it has been noticed by Noon et al. (2001, 156) that “age discrimination is both pervasive and dynamic: it is pervasive in that it is likely to affect everyone at some point or another during their life whether within or outside of the work context; it is dynamic because ageing and therefore ageism is an ongoing process of change”. The above views are in accordance with those of Collela et al. (2005, 208) who state that “(a) age is most meaningful when considered in context, such that the employees age is compared with multiple social referents, (b) the age comparisons that take place in organizations influence employment opportunities for individuals, and (c) there are forces both inside and outside the organization that influence employment opportunities of older workers”. The application of discriminatory practices in the workplace can therefore cause severe damages to employees involved as they have a major influence on their chances to continue working even in a different workplace (finding a new job when being more than 50 years old is considered as an extremely challenging effort). On the other hand, Cau-Bareille et al. (1998, 253) try to justify the appearance of age discriminatory phenomena in the workplace mentioning that age is relating with “a slowing down of sensori-motor performance, due to the increase in reaction time, that is to say, the time lag between the stimulus and its response however ageing operators may not take more time to execute the movements themselves, but may require more time to set them up (initiate the movements), and to orient them, because of limited central processes”. However, the above findings, even if they are supported by the relevant findings of scientific research, they cannot justify the existence of age discrimination in the workplace because the employer should have take the appropriate measures in order to ensure that employees in his firm will be ‘protected’ in the future when their performance will decrease. This protection refers to specific benefits that should be provided in a combination with a specific retirement plan that will offer the employees the chance to have the necessary financial support if they become redundant in a particular firm. Under these terms, the study of Collela et al. (2005, 257) showed that “unfair discrimination in the workplace can stem from a number of factors, including measures of job aptitude, job ability, or job performance that focus on such abstract properties of individuals as their race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation”. In other words, age discrimination should be considered just as a common phenomenon in the workplace if considering the fact that there are several factors that can lead to discrimination in the workplace. However, even if a common phenomenon, age discrimination should be handled very carefully by the legislator who should provide to employees all the necessary provisions that will ensure the protection of their rights to work especially in cases of redundancy after a specific age (50+) or if are not given the opportunity to be hired in a particular position because of their age. Indeed, Noon et al. (2001, 65) agree that “with the imminent aging of the workforce, and the increasing numbers of people with carer responsibilities who need or wish to work, the understanding, detection and subsequent removal of discrimination in employment is of critical importance to an egalitarian society”. Although the efforts that have been made towards the limitation of the phenomena of age discrimination in the workplace, a relevant survey made in 2006 by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (UK) showed that “age discrimination was a significant problem in the workplace with 59 per cent of respondents saying they had been disadvantaged because of their age”. Moreover, it should be noticed that age discrimination does not refer specifically in the case of redundancy but can be ‘extended’ in many areas of the daily employee’s activities, like the training provided in a particular organization. Towards this direction, a study made by Rosen et al. (1976) among company executives who had to decide on the employees that would participate in a series of training programs within the workplace, showed that “significant discrimination was applied against the older employees while the executives justified their choices by saying that older employees seem to be less willing and less able to adapt to new situations like these” (Cau – Bareille et al., 1998, 258). In other words, age discrimination can have many forms and be extended in many areas and activities of a particular workplace. Its elimination at a primary stage depends on the relevant willingness of the employer. However, in case that the rights of an employee are found by the Court to have been violated due to his age, the employer can be obliged by the law to offer to the employee the appropriate compensation for the damage that the latter suffered. The obligatory provision of other benefits can also be decided by the Court. Chapter Three – Findings The intervention of law in cases when the rights of employees are being violated is direct and extensive. In this case, the study of Shalhoub (1999, 97) showed that “in many instances, discrimination lawsuits are settled out of court, where the company pays the plaintiff an undisclosed amount of money to drop its case against it; consequently, corporations classified as "discriminatory" are those in which the employees won the lawsuit against the company, and/or where the company reached an out-of-court settlment with the parties involved”. However, the above procedure can take a long before completing and in the meantime the employee can suffer a significant damage especially if he/ she cannot find another position due to his/ her age. The protection provided by the English Law to employees that suffer from age discrimination can be characterized as effective in relation with the particular subject. However, in the past this protection is mainly indirect. For this reason, it is stated in a relevant report of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development that “age discrimination is the main area of discrimination which is protected in some other countries but which was for centuries not directly protected in the UK”. In UK, from 1 October 2006 ‘new laws protect workers from age discrimination (Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 - SI No 2006/1031 - come into force on 1 October 2006); The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations make it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees, trainees or job seekers because of their age and ensure that all workers, regardless of age, have the same rights in terms of training and promotion’ [1]. It should be noticed that after the implementation of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulation 2006, employees in UK are better protected in the case of age discrimination behaviour against them. It is noticed in CIPD (2007) that “these regulations arrived in advance of the December deadline set by the Equal Treatment Framework Directive (2000/78/EC) which required the UK to implement national legislation preventing age discrimination”. No matter the reasons of their implementation, the new provisions should be considered as valuable regarding the protection of employees in UK in cases of age discrimination. A relatively known case of age discrimination is that of Rutherford and Anor v. Secretary of State (2004). In accordance with the events presented before the Court, it has been proved that “both applicants exceeded the default age limit of 65 at the time of their dismissals; there was no "normal retiring age" in either of the relevant undertakings in which the applicants were employed”. The above case includes in fact two ‘different’ claims – in terms that different persons claim the relevant right – involving in similar issues – age discrimination in the workplace. More specifically, the first appellant, Mr John Rutherford presented before the Courts a claim for unfair dismissal and redundancy. Mr Rutherford was working in the Harvest Town Circle Ltd and was ‘dismissed in September 1998 at the age of 67; Harvest Town passed a winding up resolution on 27 February 2001 and is insolvent’ (statement of the Court). As for the second appellant, Mr Bentley, he was working in Bodner Elem Ltd and was ‘dismissed on 9 February 2001 at the age of 73; Bodner Elem was put into administrative receivership at the time of Mr Bentleys dismissal and is insolvent’ (par. 8 Rutherford and Anor v. Secretary of State, 2004) In the particular case it is stated in the court’s ‘verdict’ that ‘the imposition of the upper age limit, although now expressed to be the same for both men and women employees (it was previously 60 for women, but was amended to be the same as for men following the ruling of the Court of Justice in Marshall v. Southampton and SW Hampshire Health Authority [1986] ICR 335), had a greater adverse impact on men than on women while the exclusions were indirectly discriminatory of men; on 2 October 2003 the employment appeal tribunal allowed the appeal by the Secretary of State, set aside the second decision of the employment tribunal and dismissed the claims of Mr Rutherford and Mr Bentley’ (par. 9,10, Rutherford and Anor v. Secretary of State, 2004). The decision of the Court as explained on the basis of the law applied in the European Union proved that the employment tribunal actually made an error when interpreting the relevant legal rules and particularly when defining ‘the relevant pool too narrowly and by excluding from its consideration those in the workforce who were able to comply with the disputed age limit’ (par. 9, 10, Rutherford and Anor v Secretary of State, 2004). On the other hand, it is stated by the Court that ‘as the applicants have not established that, on the correct approach, there was any indirect sex discrimination against men in the imposition of the upper age limit of 65 while the employment tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the applicants claims for unfair dismissal and redundancy pay’ (par. 9, 10, Rutherford and Anor v. Secretary of State, 2004). In the above decision the Court has defined the terms for the interpretation of the legal rules in the particular field explaining the role of the European Court of Justice and its level of involvement in the specific issue (in terms of people’s right to proceed to the particular European Court in similar cases). Moreover, in the Rutherford v Secretary of State (2004) decision, the Court explains the content of the right of employees to address the Courts in order to claim the protection of their rights that have been violated in accordance with the rules including in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) defining also the relevant deadlines. In this context, it has been decided by the Court that ‘the right of an employee under s 94(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer and the right of an employee to a redundancy payment under s135 ERA are subject to qualifying periods of service and to specific exclusions. Prior to 1 June 1999 the qualifying period for unfair dismissal was 2 years; Since then it has been 1 year; the qualifying period for redundancy pay remains at two years continuous service’ (par. 2, Rutherford and Anor v. Secretary of State, 2004). On the other hand, to a case of gender discrimination, the Court held that ‘the submission that a hypothetical male comparator is always irrelevant in cases of alleged pregnancy discrimination is incorrect; however, it is necessary to take account of the factual nature of the particular allegation’ (par. 118, Madarassy v Nomura International PLC) The phenomenon of discrimination at work has been studied by Chiu et al. (2001, 629) who based their study on the data gathered from approximately 567 respondents in UK and Hong Kong. At a next level, the stereotypes revealed through this study were related with particular discriminatory attitudes at work. In accordance with the findings of the above study “compared to the Hong Kong sample, UK respondents saw older workers as more effective at work, but less adaptable to change; as expected, respondents own age was predictive of positive age stereotypes, although for supervisors this relationship was moderated in the case of perceptions of work effectiveness”. The general assumption from the above research was that stereotypical beliefs are closely related with the personal reactions to specific situations. In the workplace the influence of stereotypical beliefs was found to be extensive. More specifically, it has been proved that these beliefs ‘significantly affect respondents attitudes towards the training, promotion and retention of older workers, their willingness to work with older workers, and their support for positive discrimination; on the other hand, anti-age discrimination policies in the respondents organization had a positive impact on beliefs about the adaptability of older workers and possibly also on attitudes towards providing them with training” (Chiu et al., 2001, 629). The above study is really valuable in order to understand the causal events for the development of discriminatory behaviour within a specific environment (or in all social activities in general). The role of the personal environment (family, friends) to the development of such behaviour seems to be crucial. On the other hand, the study of Duncan et al. (2004, 95) proved that “although UK legislation against age discrimination is required by December 2006, little is yet known about how ageism affects different age categories of employees, and the gender dimensions of ageism have also been neglected”. In order to identify the level of involvement of the new legislation in the workplaces across Britain, Duncan et al. made a research using a questionnaire. In the particular research more than 1000 employees of a major British firm operating in the financial services area participated. In the above research “the extent and manifestations of ageism were found to vary across age categories and by sex, and evidence of gendered ageism emerged while reported examples of ageism were highest among younger and older age categories, but all age groups were affected to some degree; across all ages, women were more likely than men to experience ageist attitudes concerning appearance or sexuality” (Duncan et al., 2004, 95). In other words, it has been proved that age discrimination tends to be combined with other forms of discrimination, particular the gender discrimination. The most significant finding of the above research has been the fact that the legislation related with the age discrimination is not appropriately applied while its existence still remains unknown to a significant part of the population, particularly in the business sector with all the consequences that such an event may hide for employees in all firms operating in Britain. The implementation of the legislation referring to the age discrimination should be considered as a very important issue for all employees in UK. With the application of this legislation, all employees in the country are protected against all violations of their rights related with age discrimination. In this context, Snape et al. (2003, 78) tried to examine the “impact on employee attitudes of perceived age discrimination, drawing on a study of a local authority”. In accordance with the results of the above survey “discrimination on the grounds of being too young is at least as common as discrimination on the grounds of being too old; however, perceived age discrimination, whether for being too old or too young, has negative consequences for affective commitment to the organisation while those who feel that they have been discriminated against because they are considered too old have higher levels of continuance commitment” (Snape et al., 2003, 78). In other words, age discrimination is proved to be a major problem for young people despite the common belief that the elderly are more likely to face discrimination. Chapter Four – Analysis of results In order to understand the views of the literature and the relevant decisions made by the Courts in UK, we have to take into account that age discrimination can have many forms, the most important of which are the following ones: direct and indirect discrimination, victimization and harassment. Other provisions related with the redundancy in the workplace could be also applied. In accordance with the Employment and Equality Act Regulation (2006), the following cases of age discrimination can exist within a particular workplace: 1. Direct and Indirect Discrimination  The direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of age is included in the section 3 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulation 2006. In accordance with the specific section: ‘(1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person ("A") discriminates against another person ("B") if (a) on grounds of Bs age, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons, or (b) A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same age group as B, but (i) which puts or would put persons of the same age group as B at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons, and (ii) which puts B at that disadvantage, and A cannot show the treatment or, as the case may be, provision, criterion or practice to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.(2) A comparison of Bs case with that of another person under paragraph (1) must be such that the relevant circumstances in the one case are the same, or not materially different, in the other’ 2. Harassment Harassment is described in the 6th section of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulation 2006. In accordance with the particular section: ‘(1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person ("A") subjects another person ("B") to harassment where, on grounds of age, A engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of (a) violating Bs dignity; or (b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B; (2) Conduct shall be regarded as having the effect specified in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) only if, having regard to all the circumstances, including in particular the perception of B, it should reasonably be considered as having that effect’ 3. Victimisation The 4th section of the above Regulation refers to the case of age discrimination through the victimisation. More specifically in accordance with the relevant provision:      ‘(1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person ("A") discriminates against another person ("B") if he treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons in the same circumstances, and does so by reason that B has (a) brought proceedings against A or any other person under or by virtue of these Regulations; (b) given evidence or information in connection with proceedings brought by any person against A or any other person under or by virtue of these Regulations and so on’ On of the main parts of the new Regulation is the seventh section which “sets out the general rule that discrimination in relation to employment is unlawful: in general, any discriminatory practice policy or action which occurs in an employment situation is covered – a worker should not be disadvantaged in any area of the employment relationship (e.g. recruitment, employment benefits, dismissal) because of their age however the discrimination need not be at the place of work, or directly carried out by the employer (for example an outreach worker could be harassed by a member of the public)” (Age Concern, 2007). In other words, in case of age discrimination the Court has to evaluate the conditions under which the violation of the rights of employee (regarding his/ her age) occurred. An issue that needs to be highlighted here is the fact that although the Employment Equality (Age) regulation 2006 provide an extended network of legal rules protecting employees in UK from a possible violation of their rights, the specific legislative text also includes a series of ‘exceptions’, i.e. cases where no claim for age discrimination can be justified if arising by the employee. A first exception to the provisions of Employment Equality regulation 2006 is mentioned in the article 8 of the relevant regulation which ‘allows an employer, when recruiting for a post, to treat job applicants differently on grounds of their age if possessing a characteristic related to age is a genuine occupational requirement (“GOR”) for that post’. On the other hand, there are many other exceptions including in the above regulation mainly in the part 4 and the articles 27 and onwards. These exceptions refer to a series of issues in accordance with the rights that the legislator attempted to protect. In this context the following exceptions can be found in the part 4 of the relevant regulation: a) exception for Statutory Authority, b) exception for national security, c) exception for positive action, d) exception for retirement, e) exception for national minimum wage, f) exception for provision of certain benefits based on length of service, g) exception for provision of enhanced redundancy payments and so on. Chapter Five – Conclusions and Recommendations The behaviour of employers towards their employees has significant importance for the financial development of the particular enterprise. For this reason, any discrimination should be avoided even if justified at a first level by the general circumstances. In fact the human resource strategy followed by a particular organization should be examined thoroughly as of its feasibility in accordance with the targets set, the skills/ competencies of the employees and the cooperation developed within a particular workplace. In this context, Schuler et al. (1998) noticed that every employer should take into consideration a few issues when having to design the HR strategy applied to the particular enterprise. These issues are: ‘a) the business structure, b) the legislative and employment relationship context, c) the patterns of HRM competence and decision-making and d) the national culture’ (Schuller et al., 1998, 157). On the other hand, regarding especially the British market, Casey et al. (1999, 81) noticed that “in many UK organizations flexibility has become synonymous with deregulation and the opportunity to cut labour costs; moreover, the danger of UK’s approach regarding the workplace is that there are a lot of high performance models which the work organization and people management find difficult to adopt and operationalise”. However, British organizations seem to try hard in order to follow the principles of the market (even if this effort is not sufficient in many cases). For this reason the study of Cornelissen et al. (2001, 414) showed that in British companies “the importance of the organizational relationships and processes between departments within communication organization cannot be doubted”. It seems that the expansion of the phenomenon of discrimination in the British market should not be related exclusively with the ‘weakness’ of local firms to follow the rules set by the commercial ethics and the relevant legislation. The existence of age discrimination in many workplaces around Britain should be considered primarily as the result of the appearance of globalization in the international marketplace. This phenomenon was followed by the creation and the application of a series of ‘alternative’ forms of employment, especially the part-time employment. Indeed, the study of McGovern et al. (2004, 225) revealed that ‘the rapid growth in non-standard forms of employment toward the end of the 20th century has fuelled claims about the spread of "bad jobs" within Anglo-American capitalism; research from the United States indicates that such jobs have more bad characteristics than do permanent jobs after controlling for workers”. Under these terms, it is normal that employees feel ‘threatened’ in any case that a new plan is attempted to be implemented within a particular organization. Age discrimination is therefore used in many cases as a ‘vehicle’ for the protection of employees’ (at the level that the latter feel threatened by a specific HR strategy). In order for these phenomena to be limited, employers across UK should take into consideration the fact that employees should be protected in any case of an attempted organizational change. At this point the reference to the view of Blinder (1990) is considered as necessary. The above researcher stated that “employees usually feel that profit sharing and gain sharing are good for personal effort, company growth and productivity, and workplace atmosphere”. In other words, employees should be rewarded appropriately for their services and if there is a need for their dismissal, then they should be compensated in accordance with the existing legal provisions and the ethics governed the particular commercial market. References Age Concern (2007) Making a case against age discrimination, available at http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/Documents/ACADIA_Visual.pdf Blinder, A. (1990). Paying for Productivity: A Look at the Evidence. Brookings Institution. Washington, DC. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, CIPD (2006) available at http://www.cipd.co.uk/default.cipd Chiu, W., Chan, A., Snape, E., Redman, T. (2001) Age stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes towards older workers: An East-West comparison. Human Relations, 54(5): 629-661 Collela, A., Dipboye, R. (2005) Discrimination at Work: The Psychological and Organizational Bases. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Cornelissen, J.P., Thorpe, R., (2001) ‘The Organization of External Communication Disciplines in UK companies: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis of Dimensions and Determinants’, The Journal of Business Communication, 38(4): 413-433 Duncan, C., Loretto, W. (2004) Never the Right Age? Gender and Age-Based Discrimination in Employment. Gender, Work & Organization 11 (1), 95–115 Kadane, J., Woodworth, G. (2004). ‘Hierarchical Models for Employment Decisions’ Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 22(2): 182-200 McGovern, P., Smeaton, D., Hill, S. (2004) Bad Jobs in Britain. Nonstandard Employment and Job Quality. Work and Occupations, 5(31): 225-249 Shalhoub, Z. (1999) Organizational Downsizing, Discrimination and Corporate Social Responsibility. Westport: Quorum Books Noon, M., Ogbonna, E. (2001) Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Schuller, R., Rogovsky, N. (1998) Understanding compensation practices across firms: the impact of national culture’, Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1): 159-172 Snape, E., Redman, T. (2003) Too old or too young? The impact of perceived age discrimination. Human Resource Management Journal 13 (1), 78–89 Working with Age. Contributors: Dominique PaumÈs Cau-Bareille - editor, Jean Claude MarquiÉ - editor, Serge Volkoff - editor. Publisher: Taylor & Francis. Place of Publication: London. Publication Year: 1998 http://www.agepositive.gov.uk/news/age_legislation.asp [1] http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file27136.pdf [2] Cases/ Statutes Madarassy v Nomura International Plc, Supreme court [2007] EWCA Civ 33 Rutherford and Anor v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Supreme Court [2004] EWCA Civ 1186 The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 No. 1031 Read More