According to the Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), prohibits companies from discriminating anyone on the basis of their age. Specifically, the ADEA protects certain applicants and employees that are at 40 years of age or above. The relevant code section is 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). Under this code, applicants are protected against age discrimination in matters of hiring, firing, or promotions. In case of Palm Beach County, there was an open position for employee relations manager that needed to be filled. Mr. Zimpfer applied for the position, but was not awarded the job in spite of extensive experience in employee relations. However, Mr. Merriman, a much younger candidate, was awarded the position nevertheless that he had less
…show more content…
was ordered to pay Mr. Bobby Nickel $22.8 million dollars in an age discrimination case. This award was termed as the “largest award of its kind in Los Angeles”. In this case Mr. Nickel had worked for the company for nine years, during his tenure his performance reviews were always positive and his colleges enjoyed working with him. Hence, the company was attempting to discharge higher paid employees in order to align with the pay scale of Staples. In meetings he was subjected to jokes that referenced his age. According to court records he was harassed and eventually terminated for stealing a $0.68 bell pepper. Management enlisted employees to make false claims against the employee after he made the claim of age discrimination. In the end the judge ruled for Mr. Nickel. Although, this case proves that companies are held liable for discrimination. However, many cases are hard to prove and in this case the company would need to explain their reasoning for hiring a less qualified applicant. There would need to be a pattern of hiring younger employees. In the case of Zimpher vs Palm Beach, the qualifications of Zimpher made him more eligible for the position awarded. However, these cases are hard to prove and Palm Beach may have other credentials that are not accessible to the case study and should be required to submit to justify their
was ordered to pay Mr. Bobby Nickel $22.8 million dollars in an age discrimination case. This award was termed as the “largest award of its kind in Los Angeles”. In this case Mr. Nickel had worked for the company for nine years, during his tenure his performance reviews were always positive and his colleges enjoyed working with him. Hence, the company was attempting to discharge higher paid employees in order to align with the pay scale of Staples. In meetings he was subjected to jokes that referenced his age. According to court records he was harassed and eventually terminated for stealing a $0.68 bell pepper. Management enlisted employees to make false claims against the employee after he made the claim of age discrimination. In the end the judge ruled for Mr. Nickel. Although, this case proves that companies are held liable for discrimination. However, many cases are hard to prove and in this case the company would need to explain their reasoning for hiring a less qualified applicant. There would need to be a pattern of hiring younger employees. In the case of Zimpher vs Palm Beach, the qualifications of Zimpher made him more eligible for the position awarded. However, these cases are hard to prove and Palm Beach may have other credentials that are not accessible to the case study and should be required to submit to justify their