4 ms·

If it was in writing you should have absolutely sued. That is clear age discrimination.

TheGrassyKnoll 10y ago
I don't know anyone who was ever happy when they had to deal with lawyers...
bobbington 10y ago
Better not to be trigger happy. Much better for society. He probably found a job where his age and wisdom is more valued. The fact is some roles are better for young ones and others are better for older more experienced.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
To what end? Do you really want to work at a company that you sued and as part of the settlement they had to give you a job? What sort of damages do you think you could convince a judge or jury to give you for 'not hiring' you? I get that it is wrong, and that the employer's should have some downside for discriminating against older employees (other than losing out on some great employees) but as an individual seeking a job, the downside is much greater for the individual to sue than the company. Rather than sue, send a note to the National Labor Relations board and have them set up a sting operation and catch them in the act. Justice is served and your life isn't impacted by being part of a lawsuit that would do you no good anyway.
- fatjokes 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's not what the court would award you, i.e., a job. They would award damages in the form of lost potential income plus punitive damages.
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
    First, Yuuuuge disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, and the rules are different pretty much everywhere so, in this context I'm speaking as a California resident about employers in California, and there are reasons it is hard to win a hiring based case[1] ... To award damages you have to make the case that you were harmed. It is one thing to sue a company that dismisses you for discriminatory reasons, you had a job and a salary, and a court could find that you were discriminated against, so you were "harmed" by the loss of pay. The court could award back pay and punitive damages to make you whole. However if you had yet to be hired, there isn't any way to prove either what your salary would have been, or if you had worked there that you would not have been dismissed for any of a million completely legal reasons. As a result and claim for damages would have to somehow prove that by not hiring you you were somehow not hireable or through perhaps a long an tortuous interview process you were financially harmed. Both very hard to do. The big difference is that you've never worked there, so you haven't been harmed. However, it is illegal to discriminate and the remedy for illegal discrimination is a fine administered in response to a criminal complaint. That is why you get the NLRB involved, they can bring criminal charges, you can't[2]. [1] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lawsuits-based-the-hiring-process.html# http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lawsuits-based-the-hi... [2] Not strictly true, you could swear out a complaint but it would be up to the District Attorney to decide if they were going to prosecute based on your complaint.
    - Idontagree 10y ago
      I agree with your response, but you could probably assume someone would make it 2 weeks, couldn't you? Aren't there laws about hiring and having to pay for the first 2 weeks or something, or am I just making that up?
    - lightedman 10y ago
      As a California resident who has gone through this, you don't contact the NLRB, you contact the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement first, who in turn takes the case to the NLRB if you can not reach a settlement agreement with the company that discriminated against you. That's why it's so hard to win a case like this in CA, nobody knows the proper steps to take.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure suing a potential employer would be a career-damaging move in the eyes of other employers.
  - sigstoat 10y ago
    most places don't even seem to ask for/call references these days. they're hardly going to conduct a westlaw search to see if you've been involved in litigation. if you specifically try to get a job with the golf buddy of someone you sued, maybe you'll run into an issue, but there's an elevated likelihood that they're the same brand of asshole you had to sue.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  > To what end? To show the company they were wrong?
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
    In my opinion, the better way to do that. in the US at least, is to report them to the NLRB. The NLRB does take such complaints seriously and they do follow up on them. That can lead to hefty fines. What is more you don't have to pay for a lawyer so it costs you nothing.
- LoonyBalloony 10y ago
  Would the company sue you if they had damages to collect from you?
bbcbasic 10y ago
And maybe even if not in writing (they would have to swear that they never said this)

I don't know anyone who was ever happy when they had to deal with lawyers...

Better not to be trigger happy. Much better for society. He probably found a job where his age and wisdom is more valued. The fact is some roles are better for young ones and others are better for older more experienced.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

To what end? Do you really want to work at a company that you sued and as part of the settlement they had to give you a job? What sort of damages do you think you could convince a judge or jury to give you for 'not hiring' you? I get that it is wrong, and that the employer's should have some downside for discriminating against older employees (other than losing out on some great employees) but as an individual seeking a job, the downside is much greater for the individual to sue than the company. Rather than sue, send a note to the National Labor Relations board and have them set up a sting operation and catch them in the act. Justice is served and your life isn't impacted by being part of a lawsuit that would do you no good anyway.

fatjokes 10y ago
I'm pretty sure that's not what the court would award you, i.e., a job. They would award damages in the form of lost potential income plus punitive damages.
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  First, Yuuuuge disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, and the rules are different pretty much everywhere so, in this context I'm speaking as a California resident about employers in California, and there are reasons it is hard to win a hiring based case[1] ... To award damages you have to make the case that you were harmed. It is one thing to sue a company that dismisses you for discriminatory reasons, you had a job and a salary, and a court could find that you were discriminated against, so you were "harmed" by the loss of pay. The court could award back pay and punitive damages to make you whole. However if you had yet to be hired, there isn't any way to prove either what your salary would have been, or if you had worked there that you would not have been dismissed for any of a million completely legal reasons. As a result and claim for damages would have to somehow prove that by not hiring you you were somehow not hireable or through perhaps a long an tortuous interview process you were financially harmed. Both very hard to do. The big difference is that you've never worked there, so you haven't been harmed. However, it is illegal to discriminate and the remedy for illegal discrimination is a fine administered in response to a criminal complaint. That is why you get the NLRB involved, they can bring criminal charges, you can't[2]. [1] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lawsuits-based-the-hiring-process.html# http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lawsuits-based-the-hi... [2] Not strictly true, you could swear out a complaint but it would be up to the District Attorney to decide if they were going to prosecute based on your complaint.
  - Idontagree 10y ago
    I agree with your response, but you could probably assume someone would make it 2 weeks, couldn't you? Aren't there laws about hiring and having to pay for the first 2 weeks or something, or am I just making that up?
  - lightedman 10y ago
    As a California resident who has gone through this, you don't contact the NLRB, you contact the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement first, who in turn takes the case to the NLRB if you can not reach a settlement agreement with the company that discriminated against you. That's why it's so hard to win a case like this in CA, nobody knows the proper steps to take.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Hydraulix989 10y ago
I'm pretty sure suing a potential employer would be a career-damaging move in the eyes of other employers.
- sigstoat 10y ago
  most places don't even seem to ask for/call references these days. they're hardly going to conduct a westlaw search to see if you've been involved in litigation. if you specifically try to get a job with the golf buddy of someone you sued, maybe you'll run into an issue, but there's an elevated likelihood that they're the same brand of asshole you had to sue.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
> To what end? To show the company they were wrong?
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  In my opinion, the better way to do that. in the US at least, is to report them to the NLRB. The NLRB does take such complaints seriously and they do follow up on them. That can lead to hefty fines. What is more you don't have to pay for a lawyer so it costs you nothing.
LoonyBalloony 10y ago
Would the company sue you if they had damages to collect from you?

bbcbasic 10y ago

And maybe even if not in writing (they would have to swear that they never said this)