1
Case Study: Age Discrimination in Best Protection Insurance Company (BPIC)
Student’s Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
2
Case Study: Age Discrimination in Best Protection Insurance Company (BPIC)
Age discrimination occurs when a company and its management deny an individual
their rights as stipulated by the corporate policies or state laws. Typically, individuals of 40
and above are often on the frontline of facing discrimination from organizations due to their
age (von Schrader & Nazarov, 2016). The company may view them as those who lack
technical and communication skills, yet in the real sense, they want to replace them with
younger employees. The United States, United Kingdom, and Australia have strict laws
regarding age discrimination in the workplace. For instance, the United States has the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which forbids the harassment of individuals
aged 40 and above (von Schrader & Nazarov, 2016). By analyzing age discrimination in Best
Protection Insurance Company (BPIC), this report seeks to provide a convincing claim of
mistreatment as opined by Gus Tavus, including a rebuttal from the said corporate
organization.
Question 1: Disparate Treatment Claim
Gus claims to have been harassed based on age because the company suggests that
other candidates had sufficient qualifications and that he did not have adequate technical and
communication skills necessary for the corporate claims specialist (CCS) position. Gus may
consider this statement absurd, and it is indeed a lame excuse by the company to cover up the
unethical behavior. Gus had previously worked with the organization; had he lacked technical
and communication skills, he would not have been employed in the first place. Therefore,
Gus's claim might be true considering that he had been employed earlier and did not face
accusations of being incompetent or inexperienced. Also, one can argue that Gus's claim
might be true since the organization encouraged him to apply for the CSS role. If he lacked
3
adequate technical and communication skills, the organization would have terminated his
employment or notified him earlier not to apply for the CSS position.
Secondly, Gus claims to have faced age discrimination by the company since he and
40 other candidates were bypassed, yet others who were under 40 years old were promoted.
This scenario might have made him suspicious to believe he was harassed. Based on logic, it
is unusual for a company to offer promotions only to younger candidates and deny others of a
certain age even if they demonstrate adequate experience. Also, if the company wanted to
have only employees below age 40, they could have informed Gus and the other employees.
At least, this approach would have kept the records in check; hence, Gus would not have
addressed age discrimination claims. Besides, Gus and other employees above the age of 40
are protected by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); hence, they should
receive fair treatment (von Schrader & Nazarov, 2016).
Thirdly, Gus believes that he had been mistreated based on age since some newly
promoted employees had worked under him when he was the Regional Center Manager
(RCM). Also, the senior vice president of corporate claims (SVPCC) refused to reconsider
him for the job citing that "all decisions were etched in stone." This suggests that the SVPCC
was not interested in considering any claims from Gus concerning the process used in
promoting employees. The SVPCC did not obey the fifth amendment, which posits that
nobody should be "deprived of liberty or property without due process of law" (Interactive
Constitution, n.d.). Thus, the SVPCC's response might have made Gus to believe that he was
subjected to age discrimination.
Question 2: The Company's Rebuttal to the Claim
4
Every organization is always on the front line to defend ethical dilemmas that deem
damaging its reputation. This is not the opposite of BPIC since the SVPCC claimed that Gus
lacked technical and communication skills sufficient for the new CSS position. Also, the
company, through the vice president of regional claims (VPRC), mentions being "shocked
beyond relief" due to Gus not receiving a promotion. Although the VPRC was on Gus’s side,
the SVPCC and MCCs maintained that Gus had not been discriminated against based on age,
rather the process was fair, and candidates with better qualifications deserved to be promoted.
Also, the SVPCC refused to reconsider Gus for the position, saying that all decisions had
been thoroughly engaged, yet, in the real sense, the VPRC and the HR department were not
involved in the promotion process. This scenario indicates that the SVPCC and the two
MCCs did not follow the correct procedures of implementing an organizational project. The
HR department and the VPRC have the right to be involved in any organizational activity
involving employees. Therefore, although the SVPCC and the two MCCs maintain that Gus
had not been harassed, they demonstrated dishonesty, which accumulates to unethical
conduct by not including the HR department and the VPRC in making decisions.
With the help of Attorney Bruce Davis, it is clear that the company, except for the
VPRC and the HR department, subjected Gus to age discrimination. On close investigation, it
is evident that SVPCC and the two MCCs did not involve the VPRC and the HR department
in the promotion process, yet they ought to be there. Also, evidence showed that Gus's past
appraisal ratings were above average, fair enough, and no favorability of the ratings. Also, the
investigation proved that no formal written job descriptions and internal job postings were
addressed. Therefore, the process itself was abysmal since it was not in line with the
company's policy. These pieces of evidence suggest that Gus was indeed discriminated
5
against based on age. Thus, the SVPCC and the two MCCs should face legal charges since
they did not conform to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
6
References
Interactive Constitution. (n.d.). “The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.” Accessed
on 2022, January 18. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-
constitution/interpretation/amendment-xiv/clauses/701
von Schrader, S., & Nazarov, Z. E. (2016). Trends and patterns in age discrimination in
employment act (ADEA) charges. Research on Aging, 38(5), 580-601.
