Michigan Radio recently carried a story about Judge Peter O’Connell, a judge suing the state Bureau of Elections claiming age discrimination. The judge, currently 67 years old, would be too old to run for re-election when his current six-year term ends in January 2019.
As the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explains, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits discrimination against employees and job applicants aged 40 and over. While this prohibition seems like a sound policy on its face, age discrimination is very hard to prove.
While Judge O’Connell’s case is certainly interesting from a legal standpoint, it begs a broader question: what’s wrong with older employees? Why do we need explicit protections like the ADEA, and why do so many older employees and applicants struggle to enforce their rights under the law?
Michigan Radio quotes Judge O’Connell making two compelling arguments. "I love my job. I'm very good, in my opinion, at my job," said O'Connell. "And I'm not ready to be put out to pasture;” and, “Seventy is the new 50.”
Often in the discussion of the benefits of inclusion, thoughts focus on race, ethnicity and culture. But age diversity is also an important element of a diverse workforce.
There are real benefits to employing older workers. Last year, U.S. News published “ Five Reasons Employers Should Hire More Workers Over Age 50. ”
Those reasons were the following:
Inclusiveness in the business world isn’t about doing the right thing. Altruism is great, but at the end of the day, a business is there to make money. And just as there are real, bottom-line-driving benefits to hire a workforce that is diverse, racially and culturally, there are tangible benefits to hiring an age-diverse workforce.
Be inclusive!