Guidelines/Research Paper

GENERATIONS

Ageism in the Workplace

By Helen Dennis and Kathryn Thomas

Despite the fact the United States' Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) has been in place for over 35 years, age discriminadon in employment remains pervasive.

—Laurie McCann, senior attomey, AARP Litigation Foundation

Ageism is part of thesocial fabric of Amer- ican life. As defined by Robert Butler in 1968, ageism is the "systematic stereotyping of̂ and dis- crimination against older people because they are old, just as racism and sexism accomplished this with skin color and gender" (Butler, 1975). Ageism is pervasive and evident in the media, healthcare, education, and advertising. Television programs have few older heroes. Older feshion models are rare, and adver- dsing lacks the mature face. The medical com- mvinity has its own stereotyped language for older people: GOMER, for "get out of my emer- gency room."

The workplace as a microcosm of society re- flects the stereotypes and biases that are part of our national social environment. When age biases negatively affect workplace decisions about employment, terminadon, retirement, benefits, and training and promodon opportu- nides, age discriminadon is in acdon.

Four types of ageism have been defined in the literature (And-Ageism Taskforce, 2006). Personal ageism is an individual's atdtudes, ideas, pracdces, and beliefe that arc biased against older people. An example is a healthcare provider

Are older workers still the

employer's last choice?

assuming an older padent is not competent to par- dcipate in development of his or her medical care when the provider would not make that assumpdon about a younger padent in

the same situadon. Insdtudonal ageism refers to established rules,

missions, and pracdces that discriminate against older individuals or groups based on age. Mandatory redrement at a particular age is an example.

Intendonal ageism is atdtudes, niles, or prac- dces that are held, implemented, or engaged in with the knowledge that diey are biased against older people. Conversely, unintendonal ageism is pracdced without the perpetrator recogniz- ing the bias.

A G E DISCRIMINATION

IN EMPLOYMENT A C T

The most significant formal acknowledge- ment of ageism in the workplace was the sign- ing of the Age Discriminadon in Employment Act (ADEA) in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The purpose of die ADEA is "to pro- mote the employment of older persons based on ability rather than age, to prohibit arbitrary

84 Spring 2007

Aging Workforce

age discrimination in employment and to help employers and workers find ways to address problems arising from the impact of age on employment" (29 U.S.C. 62i(b)). The original legislation protected employees between the ages of 40 and 65. In 1978, Congress passed an amendment to extend the age of the protected group from 65 to 70, and on January i, 1987, the age cap was lifted completely (McCann, 2003).

Those exempt from the law have what the law refers to as a Bona Fide Occupation Quali- fication (BFOQ). This exemption is used to jus- tify age discrimination in some jobs (McCann, 2003). BFOQs apply to air traffic controllers, fire fighters, law enforcement officers, bus drivers, and otliers responsible for public safety. Execu- tives entitled to an annual retirement benefit of at least $44,000 also are exempt.

PREVALENCE OF AGEISM

In 2005, some 16,585 age-bias complaints were filed with die Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal employment discrimination enforcement authority. Claims are evaluated according to their merit, and most are dismissed. Among the age claims filed in 2005, about two-thirds (63 percent) were thrown out because of no reasonable cause, and almost one-fifth (18 percent) were resolved through administrative closure. Only 1.2 per- cent were resolved with successfiil conciliations. Typically, 90 percent of age discriminadon suits do not make it to trial. Judges dismiss about half of them, and die rest are settled by negoti- ation or mediation. If a case does make it to trial, it is on average two years after die suit was filed (McCann, 2003).

The highest a m o u n t of total monetary benefits paid since 1992 is $77.7 million, awarded in 2005. In that same year, die number of com- plaints decreased; two-thirds were dismissed. Among all cases received by the EEOC that year, slighdy more than one out of five (22 percent) was an age case (EEOC, 2006a).

BARRIERS PRESENTED BY AGEISM

Although evidence has shown that the ADEA has bolstered employment of older workers, many stereotypes and other barriers to employ- ment persist (Neumark, 2001). For example.

while the Anti-Ageism Taskforce (2006) found that bias in hiring is the most prevalent form of age discrimination in the workplace, only about 10 percent of age claims filed with the EEOC in 2004 were related to hiring. To the Taskforce, this situation suggests that most com- plaints are unreported, perhaps because age dis- crimination in the employment process is difficult to prove.

Lack of effective enforcement by the EEOC is a long-standing problem (McCann, 2003). For example, in 2002 the EEOC filed only 29 lawsuits out of 19,921 age discrimination charges brought (EEOC, 2006a; EEOC, 2006b). So, since the EEOC litigates only a small number of cases, enforcement becomes the responsibility of indi- viduals, who must hire a private attorney or law firm to pursue their case. Individuals often are discouraged because of the cost and the bur- den of evidence placed upon them by the fed- eral courts.

Another barrier is the perception of age dis- crimination as an economic issue and not a flin- damental civil rights concern (McCann, 2003). Freedom from discrimination due to race and gender is considered a civil right guaranteed for all individuals, with violation of this right typ- ically denounced and p r o m p t i n g remedial action. But such is not the case with age dis- crimination. Many still believe the myth diat age is a good prediaor of performance and that performance predictably declines with age. Moreover, Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Aa both allow compensatory or punitive damages—neither of which are allowed under ADEA.

Prior to March 2005, age discrimination claims could only be made for adverse treat- ment and did n o t protect against adverse impact. Other federal antidiscrimination legis- lation (Tide 7 and ADA) covers adverse impaa. With disparate impact claims, the plaintiff is not required to prove discriminatory intent but only unjustified discriminatory effect. In Smith V. City of Jackson (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that disparate-impact theory could be applied in age discrimination cases. This ruling lowers the burden of proof necessary for employees to claim age discriminadon, increases the scope of the protection of older workers.

Spring 2007 85

GENERATIONS

and forces employers to scrutinize and defend all of their employment policies in reladon to age discriminadon.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE A G E

PERCEPTIONS O F O L D E R WORKERS

Managers have both posidve and negadve perceptions about older workers or "senior employees," as substandated by a series of stud- ies by AARP. Older workers, defined as those age 50 and older, were valued for their experi- ence, knowledge, work habits, atdtudes, and commitment to quality, as well as their loyalty, punctuality, ability to keep cool in a crisis, and respect for authority (AARP, 1989; AARP-DYG. Inc., 1992; AARP, 1995a; AARP, 1995b). They were valued for their solid performance, basic skills, and getting along with coworkers (AARP, 2000).

Negadve perceptions werc also evident. Older workers were perceived as inflexible, unwilling to adapt to technology, lacking an aggressive spirit, resistant to new ways, having some phys- ical limitadons, costing more for health insur- ance, and complacent (AARP 1989; AARP-DYG. Inc., 1992; AARP, 1995a; AARP, 1995b).

Posidve and negative perceptions of older workers also were revealed in a more recent sur- vey of 400 private-sector employers conducted by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. The survey focused on employers' eval- uation of the reladve producdvity and cost of white-collared and rank-and-file employees 55 years of age and older (Munnell, Sass, and Soto, 2006). The majority of employers found older managers to be more producdve than younger ones. Approximately 40 percent of the employ- ers indicated the same for older rank-and-file workers. Two distinct advantages attributed to the older workers were their knowledge of pro- cedures and their ability to interact with cus- tomers. The " n o t so g o o d " news is that employers viewed their older workers as more expensive compared to younger workers.

While employers are reluctant to have researchers move into their environment to study ageism for fear of legal repercussions, researchers have been able to study the rela- tionship of management decisions to ageism under experimental condidons outside the work- place. Decision makers' perception of older

workers has been idendfied as an element in making assessments of older-worker qualifica- dons and decisions in hiring, ratings, promo- tions, and compensadon (Finkelstein, Burke, and Raju, 1995; Doering, Rhodes, and Schuster, 1983; Rosen and Jerdee, 1985). Note that not all studies confirm such results. However, a suffi- cient number do support the existence of the subde nature and acceptance of ageism.

A G E STEREOTYPES AFFECT MANAGEMENT

AND H I R I N G DECISIONS

A classic study on the effect of age stereo- types on management decisions was published in the Harvard Business Review (Rosen and Jerdee, 1977). Subscribers were asked to assume the role of a manager of a fictidous company and make a management decision to solve a problem. Half were asked to make judgments about incidents in which the worker was older. The other half were presented with the same incidents, but the worker was younger. Each group was asked how they would handle several situadons by evaluating a nmnber of approaches.

The management decisions proposed to resolve the problem were very different for older and younger workers for the same incident. ITie decisions reflected the following percepdons about the older workers: They were more resis- tant to change, less modvated to keep up with new technology, less creadve, and less capable of handling stressfiil situadons. The older worker was less favored for continued career develop- ment and training and unlikely to be promoted.

A more recent study further confirmed dif- ferences in the percepdon of older and younger workers (Bendick, Brown, and Wall, 1999). A pair of testers, one 57 years old and the other 32 years old, applied for 102 entry-level sales or management positions. Their credentials described them as equally qualified. The older applicant received less favorable responses fi-om employers 41.2 percent of the time. According to the researchers, "this percentage represents the net rate at which older job applicants with qualificadons equal to their younger counter- parts were disadvantaged by their age" (p. 10). The majority of the disadvantage occurred immediately upon contacting the employers, beforc the older job seeker could flilly present his

86 Spring 2007

in0 Workforce

qualifications. Other disadvantages for the older person included shorter interviews, fewer com- missions, no "call-backs," and fewer job offers.

Most interview research on age stereotyping indicates that older job interviewees whose qualifications are equal to those of younger can- didates are less likely to be hired (Britton and TTiomas, 1973; Haefiier, 1977; Rosen and Jerdee, 1976). An investigation of the effects of age stereotyping on the ratings of a potential can- didate for a supervisor's position supported this general perspective (Avolio and Barrett, 1987). Male and female participants who were young professionals listened to a twelve-minute inter- view of two candidates, one older and one younger, with similar work experience and equivalent job performance. Result? Participants gave higher overall ratings to the younger can- didate, even though the older candidate was equally qualified.

A G E PERCEPTIONS AFFECT

P R O M O T I O N AND COMPENSATION

According to the Economic Policy Institute, workers over 40 years old are not offered the same promotion opportunities, training, or compensation as younger workers (Stems and McDaniel, 1994). Assumptions made about older workers' technological competence or abil- ity to learn result in intentional or unintentional exclusion of them fi-om training opportunities. Such ageism restricts job opportunities for mature workers and ultimately affects the national economy (Anti-Ageism Taskforce, 2006) by being costiy and by limiting use of significant human resources.

T H E R O L E OF LANGUAGE

Age-related comments have been presented in court as evidence of age discrimination. The success in winning a case based on statements about age varies. Comments firequentiy are cat- egorized into "young remarks" such as "We need young blood around here," "Let's make room for some M.B.A.S," or "Let's bring in the young guns" (McCann and Giles, 2002, p. 180).

The other category is "old remarks" such as "In a forest you have to cut down the old big trees so that the little ones underneath can grow" (McCann and Giles, 2002, p. 181). This state-

ment served as sufficient proof of age discrimi- nation in one case. In another, a supervisor's ref- erence to older workers as "a/fe cockers" ("old fogies" in Yiddish) was considered potentially discriminatory, and terms such as "old fogie," "old and tired," and a "sleepy k b d of guy witli no pizzazz" have been considered evidence of age bias in others (McCann and Giles, 2002, p. 182).

A G E PERCEPTIONS AND

INSTITUTIONAL VALUES

Not all traits are equally valued in the work place. An AARP (1995a) study revealed that traits most admired about older workers were least valued by employers. Older workers often are rated high on experience, judgment, commit- ment to quality, low turnover, good attendance, and punctuality. But surprisingly, among the twelve participating large companies, these traits were not highly valued in the workplace.

Conversely, traits in which older workers were rated low were those that managers value in today's changing work environment and see as critical to a company's success. Perceived weaknesses were reflected in low ratings of older workers on flexibility, acceptance of new tech- nology, ability to learn new skills, and physical ability to perform strenuous jobs (AARP, 1995a).

W H A T A R E EMPLOYERS D O I N G ?

Some employers are taking steps to combat ageism in the workplace with specific programs and other approaches.

Recognition programs. The largest and most acknowledged recognition program is AARP Best Employers for Workers over 50. It is a national competition that began in 2001 to rec- ognize companies and organizations with the best practices and policies that address the issues of an aging workforce. Companies are judged on their policies and practices for recruitment, education and job training, opportunities for career success, health and financial benefits, alternative work arrangements, and opportu- nities for retirees.

Among the fifty winners in 2006, forty-one employers reported that their managers were evaluated according to "valuing and promoting diversity, including age" (communication with Kathi Brown, AARP, O a o b e r 10,2006). These

Spring 2007 87

GENERATIONS

awards are creating a national shift in attitude in recognizing the value of competent older workers and, more important, are supported by innovative and effective policies and practices.

Training programs. Race, gender, and etii- nicity typically are the priority subjects covered in diversity training for at least two reasons. First, discrimination still occurs for these pro- tected groups, and training is an effective tool in preventing and combating such discrimination. Second, the Department of Labor requires employers who are federal contraaors and sub- contractors to report information about the gender, race, and ethnicity of each job applicant and employee but does not require such infor- mation on the age of employees or applicants (Department of Labor, 2005). This lack of accountability is a possible reason for the lack of emphasis on age in diversity training.

Yet training on age can aflfect attitudes and actions of managers regarding older workers. In the mid 1980s, a national corporate model of management training, the Age Issues in Man- agement program, focused on preventing age discrimination in the workplace and encour- aged employers to utilize older workers. The program, conduaed by the University of South- ern California's Andrus Gerontology Center and funded by the Administration on Aging and the Levi Strauss and ARCO Foundations, demonstrated that managers can modify their thinking, intentions, and actions on age issues as a result of training (Dennis, 1988).

Knowledge-retention approaches. A relatively new awareness of older workers has emerged as retiring boomers take their knowledge and skills with them as they exit the firont door. Forward- thinking employers are recognizing the impor- tance of such a loss and and are developing policies to avoid it. One approach is to rehire their retirees. Companies such as Monsanto, the Aerospace Corporation, and Cigna Insurance have established formal programs to do just that. CVS, for example, is hiring retired senior phar- macists as mentors to apprentice pharmacy tech- nicians and to high school students in a special internship program to cultivate and reinforce their interests in entering pharmacy careers.

Others are modifying policies. To face the possible retirement of three quarters of the cur-

rent 15,000 air traffic controllers, federal rules now extend the mandatory retirement age beyond the current 56 years for controllers, on a yearly exemption basis. Under the Clinton administration, U.S. Treasury Department infor- mation technology workers were offered a $25,000 bonus to postpone their retirements. The Tennessee Valley Authotity, the largest pub- lic power company in tlie U.S., having acknowl- edged tliat 40 percent of its workforce would be eligible for retirement in five years, surveyed its employees on a volunteer basis to determine if and when they intended to retire. The TVA then used the information to drive workforce plan- ning (DeLong, 2004).

C H A N G E TAKES T I M E

Discussion of ageism in the workplace is not new. About thirty years ago, Harold L. Shep- pard, special assistant on aging to President Jimmy Carter, addressed age cUscrimination, retraining, flexible work options, and other similar subjects in his book Towards an Indus- trial Gerontob0y (1970). Today these same sub- jects are confronted with more focus and intensity because of impending economic implications of the changing demographics, boomer retirements, workforce shortages, and the need and desire for older adults to con- tinue working.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Progress has been made, but there is more to accomplish. Here are several recommenda- tions:

• Encourage age as a significant component in all diversity training.

• Develop a training guide on ageism for employers across the country to use to educate their management and staff on ageism that goes beyond knowledge of the law.

• Increase the budget of the EEOC to improve the workflow and expedite cases (Anti-Ageism Taskforce, 2006).

• C o n d u a research on those cases submit- ted to the EEOC that are dismissed because of "no reasonable cause" (Anti-Ageism Taskforce, 2006).

• C o n d u a intergenerational training, com- munication, and team building.

88 Spring 2007

Aging Workforce

As professionals in the field of aging and as current or potendal older workers, we have a responsibility to eliminate ageism in the work- place and we have a stake in the outcome. From legal, economic, and ediical perspecdves, to do less is imprudent. The tools and strategies are available to create workplace cultures that value the potential and the contribudons of mature workers.

Gerontologists typically are opdmistic and base their posidve oudook on visions of "what could be." It is dmely to act on that vision to eliminate ageism in the workplace for the eco- nomic well-being of the nadon, older adults, and our future, c o

Helen Dennis, MA., is a specialist on a£[in^, empbymmt, and retirement, and a lecturer, Leonard Davis School, Andrus Gerontology Center, Uni- versity of Southem California, Los Angeles, Calif Kathryn Thomas, M.S.G., is a doctoral student at the Leonard Davis School.

REFERENCES

AARP. 1989. Business a>td Older Workers—Current Per- ception and New Directions for the 1990's. Washington, D.C.

AARP. 1995a. Workers Over so: Old Myths, New Reali- ties. Washington, D.C.

AARP. 1995b. Business and Older Wotiiers:A Roadmap to the 2ist Century. Washington, D.C.

AARP. 2000. American Business and Older Employees: A Summary cf Findings. Washington, D.C.

AARP-DYG, Inc. 1992. Employment Policy and the Older Worker in the 1990's. Washington, D.C.

Anti-Ageism Taskforce. 2006. Ageism in America. New York: International Longevity Center—USA.

Bendick, M., Brown, L. E., and Wall, K. i999- "No Foot in tlie Door: An Experimental Study of Employ- ment Discrimination Against Older WorWcrsrJoumai of Aging &• Social Policy 10(4): 5-23.

Butler, R. N. 1975. Why Survive?: Being Old in Amer- ica. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Davis, J. A., Smith, T , and Marsden, P. V 2003. Gen- eral Social Survey 2002. Princeton, N.J.: Cultural Poliq' and die Arts National Data Archive.

Dennis, H. 1988. Fourteen Steps inManaging an Aging Work Force. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. 2005. "Obligation to Solicit Race and Gender Data for Agenq' Enforcement Purposes." Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 41 CFR Part 60-1, vol. 70, no. 194, pp. 58945-63. http://www. dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/iaY!i\l200S020i76.htm. Accessed July 15, 2006.

Doering, M., Rhodes, S. R., and Schuster, M. 1983. The Aging Worker. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

EEOC. 2006a. Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) Charges FT 1992-FY 200s. Washington, D.C: Author, http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/adea.httnl. Accessed November 13,2006.

EEOC. 2006b. EEOC Litigation Statistics, FY1992 Through FT2005. Washington, D.C.: Author http://wmv. ccoc.gov/stats/litigatimt.html. Accessed November 17,2006.

Finkelstein, L. M, Burke, M. J., and Raju, N. S. 1995. "Age Discrimination in Simulated Emplo)Tnent Con- texts: An Integrative Analysis."/owrwa/ of Applied Psy- chobgy m(4-): 317-45-

McCann, L. 200^. AffeDiscrimination in Employment Legislation in the United States Experience. Washington, D.C: AARP Foundadon Litigation.

McCann, R., and Giles, H. 2002. "Ageism in the Workplace: A Communication Perspective." In T. Nel- son, cd..,Ageism: Stereotyping and Prejudice Against Older Persons. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Munnell, A. H., Sass, S. A., and Soto, M. 2006. "Employer Attitudes Towards Older Workers: Survey Resiiits." Boston: Center for Retirement Research.

Neumark, D. 2001. Age Discrimination Legislation in the United States, NBER Working Paper No. vii\S2. Cam- bridge, Mass: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Rosen, B., and Jerdee, T. H. 1976. "The Nature of Job-Related Age Stereotypes." 7oMni«/ of Applied Psy- chology 61(2)) 180-3.

Rosen, B., and Jerdee, T H. 1977- "Too Old or Not Too Old." HarvardBtisinessReview November: 97-106.

Rosen, B., and Jerdee, T. H. 1985. Older Employees: Neiv Roles for Valued Resources. Homewood, 111.: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Sheppard, H. L. 1970. Towards an Industrial Geron- tology. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman

Stems, H., and McDaniel. M. 1994.. Job Perfbrmance and the Older Worker, AARP Public Policy Institute Work- ing Paper No. 9412. Washington D.C: AARP.

Spring 2007 89