The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Chapter 151B of Massachusetts protect employees age 40 years or older from workplace discrimination based on age. A recent study co-authored by Ohio State University Professor of Sociology, Vincent Roscigno, concluded that workers 50 years old or older face a higher incidence of termination. The study analyzed complaints filed with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission from 1988 through 2003 where either: (1) Probable Cause for discrimination was found, or (2) the employer settled the matter before litigation. Overall, the study evaluated over 2,181 age discrimination claims.

The study revealed that employees who were close to turning 50 years old or 60 years old had the highest incidence of complaints. Roscigno theorized that companies’ desires to lower healthcare and pension costs has created a spike in age discrimination complaints among workers near 60 years old. The study also revealed a sampling of the stereotypes that older workers continue to face:

In one case a 64-year-old director of finance was discharged after being told she was too old and un-trainable for computer school.

More information about the age discrimination study can be found from OSU’s website in an article entitled, Nearing Age 50 or Retirement? Watch out for Discrimination.

Forbes recently featured an interesting article written by Jan Cullinane entitled Post-Retirement Job Hunting highlights some of the obstacles that baby boomers who plan to work during retirement may face:

During 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received 16,548 charges of age discrimination. Also, consider that the average job search was 16 weeks for people under 55 years old, but 22 weeks for those older than 55. And Texas A&M economics professor Joanna Lahey found that companies were more than 40% likely to interview a younger job seeker rather than an older job seeker.

Cullinane states, however, that the shear number of workers over 40 years old, coupled with labor shortages, may force employers to not overlook the skills and value of this cohort:

Most experts, however, are upbeat about the future of mature workers. With baby boomers (more than 76 million) retiring from primary careers, and fewer younger workers (48 million Gen Xers) to replace them, labor shortages will force companies to retain, retrain (if necessary) and value the older employee.

Time will tell whether employers will be savvy enough to discard precedent and remove what has been coined as the “gray ceiling.”

Today, the Boston Business Journal featured an interesting article discussing age discrimination in the workplace. Entitled (ironically), Age does have its advantages in today’s job market, the article’s author, Matthew Youngquist, writes:

Whether overt or covert, age-related discrimination is a fact of life in the modern hiring process and a phenomenon beyond any plausible denial.

When it comes to avoiding liability, employers are much more sophisticated than they were decades ago. Direct evidence of discrimination these days is rare. Generally speaking, age discrimination cases are often built through circumstantial evidence. Let’s take downsizing for instance. Company A decides it needs to cut a percentage of its workforce due to the downturn in the economy. 40% of Company A’s workforce is 40 years old or older. During its reduction in force (RIF), 75% of those employees terminated by Company A happen to be 40 years old or older. This certainly raises an inference of age discrimination based on circumstantial evidence. The employer, of course, can always offer legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the disproportionate number of older workers affected by the RIF.

Youngquist’s article, however, indicates that older workers may have trouble just getting their foot in the door, let alone surviving a RIF:

Not only will you almost never see a published job listing asking for more than seven to 10 years of experience, but in recent years, I’ve heard employers and recruiters talk about their desire to locate “early-career professionals” or “candidates with a long runway” — both euphemisms I took to mean “older workers need not apply.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts the number workers over 55 years old growing at an annual rate of 4% — about four times quicker than the labor force as a whole. It doesn’t take an MBA to know that evaluating and rewarding employees based on their productivity, instead of their age, makes good business sense. Time will tell how Corporate America reacts to its aging workforce.