week 2 replies

100 words each reply

530 d1 reply to doug

According to the United States Code Annotated  (29 U.S.C. § 623), an employer may participate in age discrimination where there is a “bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary” to operate as a normal business.

When I think about discrimination I often think about the 7 or 8 protected categories such as Race, Religion, and Sex to name a few.  However it can be in many other forms as well.  Sometimes these discriminatory policies are legal, and sometimes they can open a company up to liability.  For example, the FBI, I understand this is not a private company, but they actively practice age discrimination.  Even though I remain in excellent physical health and can out work most folks half my age, The FBI will not accept my application because I am 56 years old.  They state the reason for this is they want applicants to be able to reach 20 years of government service and retire at the mandatory retirement age of 57.  On their website they say, “Apply before your 36th birthday unless you have veteran’s preference or federal law enforcement experience.  You must be able to retire by the age of 57.  This is discriminatory on its face, but for very reasonable and legal reasons.  

So according to USC Annotated (29 U.S.C.  § 623 ), an employer may participate in age discrimination where there is a “bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary” to operate as a normal business.  For example some cities and counties hiring practices do not actually list age requirements but they do include physical requirements that could be extremely difficult for older candidates to accomplish.  Is this discriminatory? Possibly, but it is understandable that older folks tend to develop all sorts of issues, not just strength and endurance problems but even visual acuity declination.  I have 2020 vision (thanks to PRK), but my eyes are older and do not alway “see” things as fast as one with younger eyes.  These are all concerns for agencies looking to hire older Americans.  Think about process operators in the refineries.  As part of their normal daily jobs, they have to climb 75 foot shore tanks full of petrochemicals.  They climb them to take samples and measurements.  So in cases like this, can a person who cannot climb a set of stairs be hired?  Probably not and based on 29 USC oil companies would be protected from liability. 

Taking into account your own experiences in or understanding of law enforcement, what are your thoughts regarding the Los Angeles Police Department's removal of an age requirement, given the nature of the job as a new recruit? What issues might arise?  Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.

In the case of LAPD my thoughts are complex.  On the one hand as an older officer, I applaud the decision to do away with the age restriction.  If a person can pass the physical test, including strength, endurance, and agility, well then let them go for it.  However there are other issues that come along with hiring older folks.  Bones are more brittle, eyes don’t see as well at night, we are oftentimes less flexible, (mentally and physically).  It could be looked at as a trade off.  Older people usually have a bit more discipline and don’t call in sick as much, but they may use more (scheduled) sick time.  They often bring a lot more experience to the job, and in police work this is often a good thing.  But along with the amount of wisdom an older person can bring, there is always the possibility that younger officers might not be able to relate with their older counterparts. 

Not only the physical aspects, we should examine the financial topic too. For example if you are working for an agency that has the rule of 75 or 80, which means your age plus the number years of service combined makes 75, you can retire with a full pension.  The problem with hiring older people is that for them to reach this number they don’t have to work as many years as a younger person.  Therefore employers don’t get as many years out of the older employees than they do the younger ones to reach full retirement age.  So this plus the more health appointments older people may have is something employers have to look at.  Lastly, most crimes or criminal activity involve males from the age of 18-25, (I read that somewhere) and therefore older Americans may not even speak the same language or be able to get certain references or understand the current slang, making it difficult to understand and or develop rapport with the younger minded folks they are dealing with.  All of these things should be taken into consideration when hiring older people. 

~Doug

Levin, E. A. (2018). GENDER-NORMED PHYSICAL-ABILITY TESTS UNDER TITLE VII. Columbia Law Review, 118(2), 567-603. Retrieved from  https://proxy.ccis.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/gender-normed-physical-ability-tests-under-title/docview/2085676562/se-2  

Online Web Page  (2026). FBIJOBS.Org. Age requirements.  https://fbijobs.gov/special-agents/application-and-evaluation-process  

Online Article (2026). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Who is Protected From Employment Discrimination.  https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination  

less

530 d1 reply Daniel

The 29 US Code 623 Prohibits age discrimination. It's illegal for an employer to refuse to hire or discriminate against any individual regarding compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of age. Employers cannot limit, segregate, or classify employees in ways that reduce employment opportunities or adversely affect their status due to age, nor reduce wages to comply with this law.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered whether the forced retirement of a police officer based on budgetary constraints constitutes "subterfuge" in  Sadie v. City of Cleveland, No. 12-3142/3143 (June 11, 2013).  Sadie involved a City of Cleveland ordinance that provided for the mandatory retirement of firefighters and law enforcement officers at age 65.  In 2009, however, the City significantly cut the police department budget, forcing 67 officers to be laid off and another 28 officers to be demoted. The Chief of Police also received petitions from several officers, including Joseph Sadie, to continue employment after reaching age 65. The Chief denied the petitions since retirement of these officers would enable him to reinstate some of the laid off and demoted officers. The officers who were forced into retirement filed suit, claiming that the forced retirements for budgetary reasons were a subterfuge for age discrimination which evaded the purpose of the ADEA. 

 In my experiences as a Police Officer I believe there should be an age requirement for recruits. A Police Officer is expected to perform arduous physical tasks under high stress. The NYPD's Job Standard Test is a physical endurance test to evaluate an applicants ability to perform physical tasks typically associated with a routine radio call or a critical incident. The Police Officer Candidate Job Standard Test is a timed event comprising six stations that, together, must be completed in four minutes and twenty-eight seconds (4:28) without stopping. The six stations of the Candidate Job Standard Test include; Fence Surmount: From a kneeling, weapon-ready position, the candidate sprints 50 feet to surmount a six-foot fence. Aside from these requirements a candidate must also Climb stairs, adapt or engage in Physical restraint, simulate a foot pursuit, rescue a victim by dragging a 175-180lb dummy for 600 feet, and shoot a gun in the middle of a circular ring, and not allow the barrel of the gun to touch the edges of the ring.

These tasks require an agile, mobile body with less wear and tear. As one gets older, cardiovascular endurance diminishes and hormone levels naturally change, causing muscle loss and the requirement of longer recovery time after demanding physical tasks. An age requirement is not meant to discriminate against a particular age group, its meant to keep that individual and his colleagues safe. 

References

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/623

https://www.devinemillimet.com/uploads/docs/enews/Labor-Employment/06-21-13/firefighter-law-enforcement-exception-to-the-ADEA.html

https://nypdrecruit.com/pages/police-officer-training-physical-requirements

530 d2 reply stephanie

What types of situations would one expect to fall under this Act?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from being targeted because of their “race, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, or sexual orientation” (OASAM, n.d., para. 1). When reviewing the archives, you can expect the following types of cases to follow under this act:

- a supervisor or manager using racial slurs towards an employee (causes a hostile work environment).

- being touched without consent, inappropriate comments, requests for sexual favors, or threats connected to promotions

- being passed over for promotions, terminated, or punished because of gender, religion, age, disability, or national origin

- harassment based on sexual orientation or identity

- refusing accommodations for religious purposes

- Failing to provide legally required accommodations under the Disabilities Act of 1990 (EEOC, n.d., para. 1).

- Retaliating against employees who have filed reports of discrimination and/or participated in investigations (Newbold, 2007, p. 2).

 

How might you, as a manager, avoid these situations? 

1. If I was the manager, to avoid these situations, I would ensure I created a fun, yet professional, respectful, and all-inclusive work culture. I would have an open-door policy and push open communication. I would reiterate confidentiality (what is discussed with me stays with me, unless I am bound by my position to share information).

 

2. I would clearly and effectively communicate discrimination, unsolicited touching, offensive actions and comments, retaliation of any kind, or any form of harassment will not be tolerated. Those actions will result in immediate termination of employment.

 

3. I would provide separate trainings that review the guidelines and policies surrounding Title VII. I would have a training on preventing harassment, to help employees recognize unacceptable. During this training I would exhibit the reporting procedures and reiterate the consequences of violating the policies. With these trainings, I would lead by example by exhibiting the same behaviors I expect from my employees. I would have a training on boundaries and confidentiality. All trainings will be repeated on an annual basis to ensure everyone knows what behavior is acceptable in the workplace.

 

4. As a manager, I would respond in a reasonable and fair manner to complaints. I would document all incidents (if it’s not documented, it didn’t happen). I would take all complaints with serious concern and complete a thorough investigate while protecting the reporting person with protection from retaliation.

 

5. During the hiring process, I can avoid these situations by ensuring I am hiring based on experience, credentials, and how the person fits in the company and if they are an asset to the company.

 

6. When it comes to promotion, discipline, termination. and evaluation, all decisions will be based on lack of performance (making sure performance has been documented up to the point of termination). Promotion will be based on knowledge, years of service, experience, and qualifications. Qualifications don’t always have to come from having a degree; qualifications can come from years of service or experience.

 

References

 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (n.d.). Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Retrieved May 14, 2026, from  https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/titles-i-and-v-americans-disabilities-act-1990-ada

Newbold, M.H. (2007, March 19). When does a Petty Slight Ripen into Retaliation under Title VII? International Association of Chiefs of Police.  ccis.ucourses.com

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration & Management (OASAM). (n.d.). Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved on May 14, 2026, from  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-of-1964

less

530 d2 reply aalia

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 defines harassment as unwelcome verbal or physical conduct based on legally protected characteristics such as race, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or retaliation. However, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights provides many examples of discrimination and harassment complaints. Some of the most common forms of workplace discrimination discussed within these reports include sexual harassment, employment discrimination, and racial discrimination, all of which can negatively impact an employee’s ability to work in a safe, fair, and professional environment.

Sexual Harassment is a form of inappropriate behavior that may include unwanted touching, seeking sexual favors, making sexual jokes, or asking intimate questions about a person’s sex life. It can also include repeatedly asking a person to go on a date after being told no or even sharing pornographic or sexual photos through email or text messages. According to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2020), the #MeToo movement examines sexual harassment in government workplaces, which includes “structural power imbalances and gender disparities” as well as “retaliation among victims of sexual harassment.” For instance, if a manager decides to make sexual comments toward an employee who declines every time, the employee will eventually feel uncomfortable around the manager, creating a hostile work environment. The employee’s refusal can also lead the manager to retaliate by denying a promotion or even by terminating the employee, which can affect the employee’s employment status. To help prevent sexual harassment from continuing, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2020) discussed implementing anti-harassment training programs to ensure that “victims are adequately protected against retaliation” and recommended that “Congress require findings of sexual harassment to be automatically referred to the Office of Special Counsel to ensure protections are enforced, and perpetrators are appropriately disciplined”.

The Utah Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1997) examined employment discrimination, highlighting instances where employees were treated unfairly. The committee reported that people of color were denied employment opportunities at significantly higher rates, with males experiencing discrimination more frequently than females. Asian Americans were specifically identified as a group facing employment discrimination, particularly in cases where individuals were employed for several months but later terminated due to language barriers or differences in educational backgrounds (Utah Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1997). These findings indicate that some companies failed to provide adequate training, workplace support, or information about employee rights during the hiring process. Although individuals from diverse racial and cultural backgrounds may be capable of performing job duties effectively, some employers appear unwilling to invest the necessary time and resources to train employees who speak other languages. This reluctance suggests a preference for hiring individuals who are fluent in English, thereby limiting opportunities for people from other races and cultures.

Racial discrimination may manifest as either direct or indirect actions, in which employers exhibit conscious bias, prejudice, or reliance on racial stereotypes. For instance, a manager might decline to hire a Black applicant due to personal prejudice rather than evaluating the applicant’s qualifications, skills, or experience. As a manager, I would first implement a zero-tolerance policy regarding harassment and discrimination, ensuring that all employees clearly understand which behaviors are unacceptable. I would also require mandatory training to reinforce guidelines for professionalism, respect, accountability, and compliance with federal law. Additionally, I would provide employees with confidential channels to report unethical behavior without fear of retaliation. By adopting an open-door policy and encouraging supervisors to facilitate open discussions, I aim to address concerns proactively and foster a safe, trusting work environment.

References:

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2020, April 1). U.S. Commission on Civil Rights releases report, Federal #MeToo: Examining sexual harassment in government workplaces.  https://www.usccr.gov/files/press/2020/04-01-Federal-Me-Too-PR.pdf

Utah Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (1997). Employment discrimination in Utah.  https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/11-13-Utah-Employment-Discrimination-1997.pdf

525 d1 reply troy

I  believe there are a few rare cases where holding a U.S. citizen in custody without immediate judicial access might be necessary, but I would approach that idea with caution. For me, the main point is temporary. If a U.S. citizen is captured on the battlefield while fighting for enemy forces, the government may need to detain them temporarily to assess their status and ensure national security. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the government could detain a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant. However, it emphasized that the citizen still had due process rights and the opportunity to contest the detention before an impartial decision-maker. I get the need for emergency detention during war or serious national security threats, but I don’t think the government should be able to keep a citizen locked up indefinitely without court oversight.  This also connects to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush, because both cases show that national security does not completely erase legal protections. The Court in Hamdan rejected military commission procedures that violated federal law and Common Article 3, while in Rasul, it permitted federal courts to hear habeas petitions from Guantanamo detainees. Reichel (2017) argues that criminal justice systems mirror a nation's values, and in the U.S., one key value is the limitation of government power through due process. I support the ruling on the British torture-evidence issue. Evidence obtained through torture shouldn't be allowed in court, even if British officials weren't directly involved. The 2005 House of Lords case, A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ruled against using evidence obtained through torture, including that gathered by foreign officials abroad. I believe that's the right standard since using evidence still gives torture some value. It encourages countries to ignore issues while others handle the tough tasks. The U.S. should adopt a similar standard. From a practical law-enforcement perspective, torture evidence is unreliable because people will say almost anything to stop pain or fear. It undermines the justice system's legitimacy.

References

A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71.  https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051208/aand-1.htm

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004).

Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004).

Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

525 d1 reply Daniela

1. We have a judicial system founded on the premise of probable cause and the right to due process. I personally don't think that any American deserves or should be held, detained, or restricted based on assumptions, bias, or other elements without legal bases. Thinking of historical events where American citizens were detained and had their movements restricted, such as the Japanese Americans during WWII. Around 120,000 people of Japanese descent and roughly 70,000 U.S. citizens were removed, relocated, and had their movement restricted pretty much equivalent to incarceration, but without recourse to the judicial system. This happened due to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, combined with a mass hysteria which led to racial prejudice and labeling of individuals as “enemy aliens” no matter of their citizenship status. Analyzing all this situation with my 2026 view, I think the decision makers were advised by scared “leaders” who influenced these decisions based on their bias and fears. The American people, even at the time, recognized this was a human rights violation, and many were appalled at the decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the decision made in Korematsu v. United States (1944) (Adachi, 2022)

Another event in our recent history where restrictions were exchanged for supposed safety was during covid-19. At the height of covid, I had to deploy my whole battalion of almost 700 Soldiers. We had to isolate, quarantine, feed, lodge and so many more logistical elements in a world where everything and everyone has stopped. Locals where we deployed to had curfews and hefty fines were being issued if they were found on the streets before 6am or after 8pm. They had to log online to print a ticket with their destination to be able to travel outside their dwellings to avoid fines. We were lacking resources, were on lockdown in small little spaces, and many of us found out we could NEVER make it on shows like "Alone". Facilities were closed; the gyms were forever closed. A friend of mine had to quarantine three times during this stint. The quarantine protocol was 14 days, alone in a fairly remote part of the post. He texted me one day and said he ran 10 miles in that room; he told me he was going crazy. I guess that's what it means to be tortured?!

2. Torturing someone to obtain information has been used since the dawn of civilization. Torture is still practiced in many countries to obtain confessions or to secure convictions. Of course, torture is used for more than just legal obliging methods, but I will mostly focus on this aspect. Methods such as prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, threats, and humiliation are designed to break the strongest person down. The UN Convention against Torture defines torture as: “any act that intentionally inflicts severe physical or mental pain or suffering, carried out by or with the consent of a public official, for purposes such as obtaining information, punishment, or intimidation.” (scienceinsights.org, 2026) A person under duress, threatened with or in solitary confinement, prolonged interrogation, and sleep deprived, could tell or admit to an investigator anything they are suggesting to him too. Physical torture, which I hope doesn’t happen within our police stations or other organizations that should be upholding the law, is even more evil and unconscionable.

References

Adachi, N. (2022). https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/legality-japanese-american-relocation. Retrieved from https://www.ebsco.com.

scienceinsights.org. (2026, March 20). Retrieved from https://scienceinsights.org/what-is-psychological-torture-and-what-it-does-to-the-brain/.