Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Labor Law

XYZ made Smith a foreman. The two candidates for the job were Smith, age 45, and Peterson, age 56. Peterson feels he has been discriminated against—especially after he talked to the boss who told him that the company wanted a younger man than he for the job. Peterson had talked with the boss the prior year about retiring at 55, but the boss had talked him out of it. Will Peterson succeed if he brings an age discrimination lawsuit? Why?


The law that applies to this case is found in The Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1961 (ADEA). Under Adea, 1961, which applies to private employers, who have 20 or more employees under them, categorically bans any kind of discrimination, either against employees who are 40 or above 40 years of age. This law covers the entire gamut of employer-employee relationships, including promotion, which seems to be the contentious issue in this case. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) (P.L. 90-202, 81 Stat. 602), among other things, makes it illegal to “make distinctions among employees based on age.” (Age discrimination in Employment Act).


In this case, it is possible that Peterson can apply discriminatory treatment, and it would be obligatory on the part of ADEA to take it up for hearing. In the leading case of Smith v. The city of Jackson, the Supreme Court took up the matter of disparate-impact


If Jackson could maintain that the discrimination was purely on age grounds, he would succeed in this case. On the part of the Company, they would decry the ADEA claim by showing that the challenged policy was based on “reasonable factors other than age.” (Gaudio).


In Smith v. City of Jackson, the Supreme Court ruled that the ADEA permits “disparate- impact” claims whereby wage raise conformity was established between junior police officers, with less than 5 years experience, along with senior officers who were discriminated against because of their age. (Supreme Court Collection).

Civil Rights Act of 1964

The local bank has always had female tellers and only female tellers. Bill Wilson applies to be a teller at a local bank. The bank explains its policy to him but offers him a different job at an equivalent salary. Does Wilson have a claim against the bank under Title VII? (Remember Oncale?) Is this policy discrimination based on gender?


Under 20002-2 Subsection a (2), Section 703, it has been deemed that discrimination against applicants for employment that would divest, or tend to divest an individual or prospective employee of employment opportunities due, interalia, to his gender, would be deemed illegal. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

Further, it is seen that, if the complainant shows that respondent has in vogue, a particular practice that has a disparate impact, based on gender, it would be incumbent upon the respondent to manifest that disputed practice is job-related for the position in question and is in conformity with accepted business requirements.


In this case, it is seen that the bank is convention-bound, not to accept male tellers, and has provided alternative arrangements for Bill Wilson. It would be incumbent on the part of the bank to prove that appointing female tellers was job-related and more than a norm, fulfilled business requirements.


In the event, they can justify that use of female tellers was a business need, the aspect of gender discrimination made by Bill does not hold good. However, if this is not possible, it becomes plain that the bank’s discriminatory policy has no sound premise, and would thus invite discriminatory action.


The Oncale case – Oncale v. Sundowners Offshore Services Inc. 523 US 75 (1998) differs from the present situation in that while this deals with gender discrimination, the Oncale case related to same-sex sexual harassment which is cognizable offense under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964. (Storrow).

While the lower courts found that this harassment fell outside the ambit of a strict interpretation of Title VII, the Supreme Court issued charges. The fallout of this case has been that it has lent a strong voice to necessary amendments in Title VII banning discrimination on the ground of sexual choices, more significantly it clarifies that Court acceptance that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates the sex stereotyping restrictions of Title VII. (Storrow).

Environment law


Environmental issues have become a global problem since natural wealth is being exploited by all countries of the world. The demands for fossil fuels, indiscriminate use of natural resources, and demands on living space have become key problems in today’s world. Besides pollution, industrial wastes, population spacing, and constricted roadways have accentuated the problems. (Healing and Preserving the Environment: Challenge and Problem).


Major legislation has become necessary to tackle environmental issues on a war footing. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (1970), Environmental Quality Improvement Act, National Environment Education Act, and finally the Environmental protection Act (EPA) have been enacted to provide teeth to environmental solutions and their implementations

The EPA is meant to control and evaluate the milieu and execute research studies on major areas of environmental accountability. The rationale behind the enunciation of the National Environmental Policy Act has been to focus Governments’ attention to consider the impact of degradation of environments on human living and its far-reaching implications.


The environmental problem is a global one and therefore it requires global solutions. For one thing, heads of governments need to establish a common global platform where serious issues need to be addressed and solutions worked out for the common good of the world community. For another, if environmental problems are put up on such platforms, it is possible to gain workable solutions that could better the quality of life humans live and also seek the protection of life on the planet, earth.


It is seen that despite well-meaning dialogues addressed to global issues, serious concerns need to be addressed to implementation and enforcement over some time, along with necessary policy guidelines and procedures that could provide the necessary impetus to deal with major environmental issues on national levels.

It is proposed to form Regional Committees enlisting representations from all well-meaning countries interested in environmental protection and safety and who would be keen in improving the quality of human living through the positive harnessing of environmental powers while striving to retain its essential pristine forms.

Works Cited

Age Discrimination in Employment Act: Act of Congress: Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1967. Web.

Gaudio, Beth. Age Discrimination Lawsuits. NFIB: Legal Foundation. 2005. Web.

Supreme Court Collection: Smith V City of Jackson: Supreme Court of the United States. Cornell University of law School. 2005. Web.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The US Equal Employment opportunity commission. 1997. Web.

Storrow, Richard F. Same Sex Sexual harassment claims after Oncale: Defining the boundaries of actionable conduct. American university Law Review: Social Sciences Research Network, SSRN. Vol 47: No 3. 1998. Web.

Healing and Preserving the Environment: Challenge and Problem. Foresight Nanotech Institute. 2008. Web.

Find out your order's cost