skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 64212 Find in a Library
Title: AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT, PART 1
Journal: LEGAL POINTS  Issue:98  Dated:(1979)  Pages:COMPLETE ISSUE
Author(s): ANON
Corporate Author: International Assoc of Chiefs of Police
Bureau of Governmental Relations and Legal Counsel
United States of America
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 4
Sponsoring Agency: International Assoc of Chiefs of Police
Arlington, VA 22201
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: FOCUSING ON CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS, THIS FIRST OF TWO BULLETINS DEALING WITH AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT, PARTICULARLY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, DISCUSSES TRADITIONAL PROTECTIONS AND STATUTORY REFORM.
Abstract: TRADITIONALLY, ARBITRARY AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT HAS PREVENTED OLDER AMERICAN FROM OBTAINING JOBS AND HAS THUS CONTRIBUTED TO A SENSE OF INSECURITY REGARDING EMPLOYMENT ALREADY ACQUIRED. RECOGNIZING THE ABSENCE OF LEGAL REDRESS FOR THE VICTIMS OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION, CONGRESS, IN 1968, ENACTED LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT ARBITRARY AGE DISCRIMINATION AND PROMOTE THE EMPLOYMENT OF OLDER PERSONS BASED ON ABILITY RATHER THAN AGE. AN EXAMINATION OF CASE LAW HELPS TO DETERMINE HOW THIS COULD AFFECT THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES USED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. ALTHOUGH THERE ARE NOT REPORTED FEDERAL CASES IN WHICH A POLICE OFFICER CHALLENGED A MAXIMUM AGE LIMITATION FOR HIRING AS VIOLATING THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, MANDATORY RETIREMENT SCHEMES HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE STATE AND GENERALLY HAVE BEEN UPHELD. CONGRESS ALSO HAS PASSED AN AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT (ADEA) TO PROVIDE VICTIMS OF AGE DISCRIMINATION WITH A MEANS OF REDRESS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, ALTHOUGH THERE IS DISAGREEMENT AS TO WHAT SORTS OF CONDUCT ARE SUFFICIENTLY DISCRIMINATORY TO VIOLATE THE ACT. IN 1979 A RECENT AMENDMENT TO THE ADEA EXTENDED COVERAGE OF ITS PROHIBITIONS TO INDIVIDUALS OF AT LEAST 40, BUT LESS THAN 70, YEARS OF AGE. THE ACT PROVIDES THAT AN EMPLOYER MAY TAKE ACTION WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AGE DISCRIMINATORY WHERE THE DIFFERENTIATION IS BASED UPON REASONABLE FACTORS OTHER THAN AGE. FOOTNOTES ARE GIVEN. SEE ALSO NCJ-64213.
Index Term(s): Age discrimination; Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Equal opportunity employment; Equal Protection; Older Adults (65+); Personnel selection; Police personnel
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=64212

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.