Employment Liability Claim
Is this case one of disparate impact or disparate treatment?
This is a kind of disparate impact which can be treated with a special intervention. The allocation for equal employment opportunities can as well be guided by the particular company or firm that needs to fill the employment gap. Even amidst the law’s provision, there is a consistency maintained by the company in order not to lose expected objectives. Age experience is a matter of intervention that matches, but the age of a person should not condemn a person to being disqualified. If the plaintiff clings on his age as the cause of his discrimination, he may as well be right (Dwyer, 2008). But if the company stands on age experience to prove over-qualification, they are also right. The proper intervention is, therefore, to look at the provisions of the Employment Act.
What is the legal basis or provision for the alleged discrimination?
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the authority given charge over employment provisions by the Constitution. The employment policies cover claims that are linked to employment discrimination. These include federal, state, or local law violations that cautions against discrimination based on creed, race, age, military service, sexual orientation, marital status, color, national origin, pregnancy, gender, religion, and any disability (Andrews, 2015). Many employment policies have provisions that extend their coverage to ‘other protected classes’ such as one based on non-descript ‘discrimination’ or when discrimination occurs from corporate mandates. While other policies apply when particular bias has caused some form of personal injury (Dwyer, 2008).
Specifically, on matters concerning the allegations by the plaintiff, he stands on his right as provided by the 1967’s Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The ADEA protects victims who are over 40 years from getting discriminated against in employment opportunities because of age. Its protection provisions cover from job applicants to employees (Hall, 2009). According to the laws safeguarded by the ADEA, discrimination against an individual based on age with regard to conditions, terms, or privileges such as hiring, promotion, firing, layoff, benefits, training, job assignments, and compensation is unlawful. Additionally, the criminal provisions extend to cover retaliation against a person who opposes the employment practices of the company or firm that discriminates against age. It is also unlawful to file a lawsuit against the person who opposes such employment malpractices, or to testify against them, or to participate in any investigation, litigation, or proceeding that is provided by the ADEA. The ADEA covers up to employers having over 20 employees working under him/her that includes both local and state governments. It as well covers employment agencies, labor organizations, and those in the federal government.
What would be his prima facie case?
His prima facie would be based on the ADEAs provision, which requires that no one should be aged off the employment opportunity based on his or her age. His claim is accredited in the appeal for verification if the occurrence was upright. Filing the lawsuit according to his case is quite in order, and he can achieve victory if it is purely for the basis of the claim he provides, and which the ADEA stands against as undermining of laws provision (Hall, 2009).
What defense would INA (the defendant) use?
While the ADEA advocates for age-equality assurance in employment security, it also provides an employer with a right to check through the age details. The ADEA provides for pre-employment inquiries right to the employer, which does not put out the employer from the decisional rules of his or her company with regard to age or date of birth (Hall, 2009). But because those inquiries may impact to exclusive deterrence of the elderly from equal employment chances, requests for age details are therefore examined closely to ensure that the inquiry has served a lawful course rather than fulfilling a prohibition. In this case, the defendant (Insurance Company of North America) stands to protect its image against the claim that selection of employ on inquiry of age was not based on age discrimination but rather, on the lawful and job-specific detail that require high degree activity, for which advanced age could not effectively accomplish the required tasks.
Information that may be asked for by the plaintiff’s attorney; the defendant’s attorney
Assumingly, the plaintiff’s attorney would require detail on why the company would not employ his client if the selection was not based on age discrimination. Holding the defendant liable to committing a crime against the law would require the plaintiff’s attorney to request for the specific details of the job that was openly advertised, and who they resorted to taking, based on what rationale. On the other hand, the defendant’s attorney would ask for the plaintiff’s reason on why he thinks he was not over-qualified. Secondly, he would ask for the plaintiff’s awareness of the company’s Constitution or dealings and to what reason does he think he needed to be part of the employees.
References
Andrews, W.J., and Levine, M.S. (2015). Top 10 Employment Liability Concerns. SHRM Magazine. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/070815-employment-liability.aspx. Accessed on May 7, 2020.
Dwyer, D.J. (2008). Discrimination in employment: Understanding the liabilities. SHRM.
Hall, A.T. (2009). Legal Issues in Human Resources Management. Society for Human Resource Management. https://www.shrm.org/certification/for-organizations/academic-alignment/faculty-resources/Documents/09-0185-LegalIssuesinHRM-IM-FNL.pdf. Accessed on May 7, 2020.