Week 1 Case Study 1
Age Discrimination
William Fa
School of Business, Liberty University
Author Note
William Fa
I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to William Fa. Email:
WFFA@liberty.edu
Week 1 Case Study 2
Introduction
Traditionally, Best Protection Insurance Company (BPIC) has dealt with complaints
mostly through the organization's customer care department and there four largest claim
facilities. The company chose to restructure itself by closing four geographical claim
facilities and Regional Center Management (RCM) jobs accompanying those locations. The
company has also opted to restructure their functions by creating 5 additional Corporate Claims
Specialist (CCS) jobs inside the company complaints system among other structure reductions.
The CCS role is recreated, and advancements from within will be used to fill it. Since Gus Tavus,
a 52-year-old RCM, would no longer have a job after the company's upcoming organizational
restructuring, the Senior Vice President of Corporate Claims (SVPCC) has urged him to pursue
for a position within the 5 additional CCS jobs.
In addition to Gus, other RCMs, who were all older than 40, have been requested to
submit an application. The 5 employees of the RCMs, who are all underage of 40, were awarded
the position, whereas Gus and other RCMs are not elevated to additional CCS posts. Gus files a
case with BPIC, alleging that the company violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
by treating him unequally during the selection phase for reasons related to age. Gus claims that
this procedure is marginalizing him due to his age. Inequities in opportunities and access to
resources can be traced back to ideological, biased, and organizational discriminatory practices
towards elders as well as the marginalized, is referenced by Chen and Chen (2017).
Disparate Treatment Claim by Gus Based on Age
This study lends credence to Gus Tavus's contention that he was subjected to disparate
treatment on the basis of age. Best Practice Insurance Company (BPIC) made the decision to
revitalize their disputes process. As part of this process, the company got rid of four branches
Week 1 Case Study 3
across the country and the job of Regional Center Manager (RCM). Additionally, the company
set up a large number of actual field branches nationwide.
This led to the development of 5 additional jobs for Corporate Claims Specialists (CCS).
Gus and the remaining applicants were informed that the CCS jobs will be allocated by existing
staff from inside the complaints department, and they were encouraged to submit applications for
those roles. As revealed by BPIC, the proof of bias committed towards Gus is highlighted in a
variety of different acts. To begin, candidates for the additional CCS jobs were going to be
selected from current employees of the complaints department for existing staff.
Gus meets this preliminary condition; therefore, allowing us to consider him eligible for
any CCS position. Based on the assertions made by SVPCC and the MCCs, to be eligible for
such newly CCS jobs, one needed to have excellent abilities and expertise, notably in the areas of
communications and technological expertise. On the other hand, there was no evidence to
suggest that Gus lacks the basic personal and professional abilities. In any scenario, the criteria
had only been presumed due to neither a clear, written employment specification for such newly
CCS role rather than an official internal recruitment post typically mandated by organizational
procedures.
Instead, these needs were just assumed. In addition, the manner in which the whole
application process was carried out has been biased, and it did not take into account Gus'
extensive experience, professional skills, or level of expertise. The SVPCC and MCCs came
together to discuss the number of potential applicants after first creating a list of workers,
especially Gus, who they felt would be suitable for the position. Gus' previous annual reviews
and employment records were not even mentioned at all during the meeting between SVPCC and
the MCCs.
Week 1 Case Study 4
Alternatively, during that discussion, the SVPCC and MCCs chose to discuss the
employee records and prior job evaluation of the handful conditionally approved applicants who
were seeking authorization. This is important to take into account the fact that all of the
applicants who have been ultimately chosen for CCS positions are younger compared to Gus.
Presumptions of proof for this assertion can be drawn from the fact that BPIC engages in clearly
questionable recruitment practices. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) makes
it illegal to discriminate any people who are 40 years old or older throughout the workplace
(Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2020). The scenario that Gus finds himself in is clearly obvious
illustration of BPIC's discriminatory treatment of him due to his age.
BPIC Position and Rebuttal to Disparate Treatment Claim
In response to the unsubstantiated assertions made by Gus, the position that BPIC takes is
that their policy obligates them to never discriminate against any employee in terms of age when
it comes to job prospects and to consistently provide Equal Employment Opportunities to all
employees. Before finalizing their hiring decision, the firm claims that they conducted applicant
assessments in a way that was both equitable and justifiable, and they would never pass up an
opportunity to hire a competent worker. The BPIC asserts that they comply with the restrictions
specified with in Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and that they will never
knowingly undermine these laws so that they could avoid doing so. Because the organization is
aware that it already possesses valuable resources among regular members, they are urging
workers to submit applications for roles for which they meet the requirements.
Whenever the job of Corporate Claims Specialist was developed, the work criteria and
the requisite abilities were both established at the same time. Organizations are unable to remain
efficient and productive contrary to companies in their field if they do not adapt to changing
Week 1 Case Study 5
conditions and rethink their operations through a period of time. The bright side is that this
creates a higher need for creative, well-educated, and competent individuals to assume those
positions. In many cases, employees younger than 40 have an edge over those older than them
because they have had more time to acquire the appropriate capabilities through formal
training qualifications.
Although it is plausible that Gus lacked the necessary skills, and that the other applicants
are selected not based upon their age due to them being highly proficient overall. Since Gus
didn't have a chance at getting the job, he probably shouldn't even apply, but it doesn't imply he's
definitely getting it. Not only was there no written account of responsibilities, but there was no
evidence of a plot against the more senior employees. The ADEA, as described by Guerin and
Clements (2022), provides businesses with a remedy against disparate impact complaints: When
any company can demonstrate the standard or procedure that caused the disparate impact were
determined under a Reasonable Factor Other than Age (RFOA), then the organization will not be
held liable.
Conclusion
In conclusion, each side of the discrimination suit had valid arguments, and it would be
difficult to conclude that BPIC had disregarded the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967. Even if the chosen workers were once Gus's colleagues, it doesn't make them less capable
of performing the duties. In actuality, there was no reason to correlate Gus and his staff members
under the prior setup, considering that there was no possibility of an upward shift for either
group until Gus himself resigned. This put the chosen workers at such a heightened risk since,
unlike Gus, they appeared to have no practical work experience essential for the
Week 1 Case Study 6
additional position. It was an entirely new ballgame for Gus and his coworkers when they all
found themselves competing for same offers.
Week 1 Case Study 7
References
Chen, S., & Chen, G. (2017). Do employers discriminate against the aging workers when hiring
employees in China? Journal of International Development, 29(6), 805-824.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3275
Guerin, L., & Clements, S. (2022). The essential guide to Federal Employment Laws: For
managers, business owners & HR professionals in any state (7th ed.). Nolo.
Judge, T.A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. (2020). Staffing organizations (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
