The Age Discrimination in Employment Act - Article Example

I The purpose of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) according to Sec.621. [Section 2, b] is to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age; to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment, to help employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment. Any employment policy or practice against the above purposes is discriminatory to be subject to the determination of the court or agency exercising quasi-judicial functions (The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). The law protects people aged 40 or older. They are the only ones who can file a complaint under this law. But, they are required to show proof of the alleged discrimination because in all cases coming under the jurisdiction of judicial or agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions it is necessary that there is proof to support any claim. Opinions or belief of discrimination are not accepted. There must be proof to show that discrimination did occur. Witness as to events or truth of contents of documents and the actual documents must be presented. A complaint by a person aged 40 or older demonstrating that he/ she was replaced by somebody younger than aged 40 is insufficient. He/ she must show that the younger person has less competence and experience than him/her to handle the tasks of the position as delineated in the office job description. Because it may be possible that the younger person is more knowledgeable, competent and experienced for the job, in such a case there is no discrimination. As in the case of Cerutti v BASF Corp., where the court ruled that there was no discrimination in the case filed by 10 workers laid off due to the restructuring of the corporation because the "employees (retained, though some of younger age) had the skills needed for future performance given the restructuring." II Texas has its own Child Labor Law patterned after the Federal Law but some provisions were added or clarified to the needs of the State of Texas. The purpose of the Texas Child Labor Law is to ensure that a child is not employed in an occupation or manner that is detrimental to the child's safety, health, or well-being. Children aged 14 and above are allowed to work except for some tasks that the law either totally prohibits the child to do, or may be allowed at certain ages. There are also tasks that although are prohibited for a certain age but may still be allowed if the child is an Apprentice or a Student Learner. In such cases there are requisites that must be met in order that the task given to the child may be considered legal: For an Apprentice the child must be employed in a recognized apprenticeable trade; works incidental to training; works intermittently, short, and under close journeyman supervision; and registered or under written agreement about work standards. For a Student Learner the child must be enrolled in an authorized cooperative vocational training program; and employed under a written agreement providing that: (1) work is incidental to training; (2) work is intermittent, short and under close supervision; (3) safety instruction are given by school and employer; and a schedule of organized and progressive work is prepared. Guided by the explanations above and the Texas Child Labor Law, as the New Manager of Minyard's Grocery Store located in Texas I have assessed each child worker and found out that only the 16-year-old operating the cardboard bailer violates the Texas State Law for being a prohibited occupation or hazardous occupation (TWC 817.23, no. 8 and 12. Note that in both cases, if the child is an apprentice or a student-learner he/she is not covered by the prohibition.) The rest of the child workers are alright as long as they follow the restrictions as follows: A 14-year-old bagging groceries every Saturday for four hours is not contrary to Chapter 51 of the Texas State law as long as he/she is not assigned to work between midnight and 5 a.m. A 16-year-old slicing lunch meat at the deli counter does not violate the law if he/she does not use a power-driven meat processing machine. The minute that the child aged 17 or younger operates or assists to operate a power-driven meat processing machine this is a violation of TWC 817.23, no.10. Note that, if the child is an apprentice or a student-learner he/she is not covered by the prohibition. A 17-year-old grinding hamburger meat is not a violation of the law if he uses a manual grinder. The minute that the child aged 17 or younger operates or assists to operate a power-driven meat processing machine this is a violation of TWC 817.23, no.10. Note that, if the child is an apprentice or a student-learner he/she is not covered by the prohibition. A 16-year-old driving a fork lift in the back arranging pallets is a direct violation of the law TWC 817.23 no.7 which prohibits 16- and 17- Year Olds to operate or assist to operate a power-driven hoisting apparatus. A fork lift is a power-driven hoisting apparatus. A 15-year-old washing and packing strawberries in the produce area is not a violation of the law and is actually a permitted task under TWC 817.21 no.9. A 16-year-old organizing frozen food boxes in the frozen food cooler (a freezer located in the back of the store) is not a violation of the law as long as he/she does not operate or assist to operate a power-driven hoisting apparatus TWC 817.23 no.7 . III Neil Romano, former Assistant Secretary of Labor and Head of the office of Disability Employment Policy wrote in 26 February 2010 an article entitled "Amended Americans with Disabilities Act open up new opportunities: More impairments covered and accommodations clarified." He claims that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was one of the single greatest legislative advancements for people with disabilities. It embodied the dream of universal equality and the end of discrimination in the workplace. This was not fully realized since court decisions chipped away at the legislative intent. But the 2008 Revisions signed by President George W. Bush sought to cure that and even expanding its scope to protect more people with disabilities. He affirms his belief in people with disabilities as one of the country's most valuable and underutilized sources of talent. He then calls upon people "with disabilities to take charge of our careers and get informed about these important changes to ADA." He mentions Linda Batiste, a consultant with the Job Accommodation Network and working with the Office of Disability Employment Policy at the US Department of Labor as one who can help get the accommodation needed by the disabled to be successful. Aside from people support, there are companies that hire disabled persons through the GettingHired.com website. He reiterates his call for people with disabilities to embrace these changes in the ADA and partake of these support mechanisms so that they will be truly equal with other men and that they can exercise their inalienable rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The article is not as informative as the title led the reader to believe. It fails in the aspect of informing the people of any of the revisions signed into law by President Bush. It does not talk of any particular provision or law. What it does is merely encourage the people to read and get to know the law as a tool to help one get the accommodations one may need. It mentions support systems that are already in existence even before the signing of the revisions as another tool or means to equip the disabled person to find employment or assistance. In essence, the government has provided the disabled person the tools and he must partake of these for his own advancement. The article is written in a manner as a politician would write one with Romano's use of the terms - we, us, our. He was referring to be as one with the people with disabilities or to be of the same cause and yet he uses language sensitive terms that people with disabilities may take offense to - talking about disabilities as impairments; and benefit rights as accommodations bearing negative connotations. SOURCES: Cases On ADEA Retrieved on 16 June 2010 at http://www.introlaw.com/ed/articles/adea04.html Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322, 552 U.S. ____ (Feb. 27, 2008) Cerutti v. BASF Corp., (No. 02-3471, 02-3700, 7th Cir., 2003) H.R. Specialist (2004). When Deciding Layoffs, Rely on Several Objective Factors. Business Management Daily. Retrieved on 16 June 2010 at http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/articles/2551/1/When-deciding-layoffs-rely-on-several-objective-factors/Page1.html Law and Commentary on ADEA. Retrieved on 16 June 2010 at http://library.findlaw.com/employment-law/age-discrimination-in-employment-act-adea/ Lucio, Christina M. Employment - Supreme Court Clarifies What Constitutes A "Charge" Under ADEA. Retrieved on 16 June 2010 at http://www.troutmansanders.com/03-05-2008/ Summary Of The Texas Child Labor Law (Chapter 51, Texas Labor Code). Texas WorkForce. Retrievedon 16 June 2010 at http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/lablaw/cllsum.html Read More