12 ms·

> “Changes in our workforce are about skills, not age,” Ed Barbini, a spokesman for IBM said in an emailed statement. I'm assuming this is just an excuse and i

> “Changes in our workforce are about skills, not age,” Ed Barbini, a spokesman for IBM said in an emailed statement. I'm assuming this is just an excuse and it has more to do with the fact that their older workers have higher salaries. But would the defense "we fired older workers because they were paid more" hold up in court? edit: I'll answer my own question. According to an article I found [1]: > The United States Supreme Court has held that an employer does not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, by acting on the basis of a factor, such as an employees’ pension status, seniority or salary, that is empirically correlated with age. [1] https://aaronhall.com/does-being-fired-because-of-your-salary-constitute-age-discrimination/ https://aaronhall.com/does-being-fired-because-of-your-salar...

mfringel 8y ago
Now I'm wondering if they would have to make all of the salaries part of the court record if they tried using that defense.
pnw_hazor 8y ago
Though for just about every other protected class category it is the result (disproportionate effects) that matter.
notacoward 8y ago
You left out an important word. The SC has held that an employer does not automatically violate the ADEA etc. As your own source continues: "Age discrimination may exist, however, where an employer terminates an employee based on a factor such as experience or salary where the employer presupposes a correlation with age and uses that factor as a proxy for age." That is in fact what ultimately happened with Hazen, by the way. The use of proxy criteria as a facade for discrimination has been addressed in many other discrimination/quota cases, and courts routinely see right through it. So the answer to your question is basically no, unless the employer can prove that they were more than normally oblivious to the disparate effect their choices would have. I don't think any of IBM's lawyers are likely to suggest such a defense.

mfringel 8y ago

Now I'm wondering if they would have to make all of the salaries part of the court record if they tried using that defense.

pnw_hazor 8y ago

Though for just about every other protected class category it is the result (disproportionate effects) that matter.

notacoward 8y ago

You left out an important word. The SC has held that an employer does not automatically violate the ADEA etc. As your own source continues: "Age discrimination may exist, however, where an employer terminates an employee based on a factor such as experience or salary where the employer presupposes a correlation with age and uses that factor as a proxy for age." That is in fact what ultimately happened with Hazen, by the way. The use of proxy criteria as a facade for discrimination has been addressed in many other discrimination/quota cases, and courts routinely see right through it. So the answer to your question is basically no, unless the employer can prove that they were more than normally oblivious to the disparate effect their choices would have. I don't think any of IBM's lawyers are likely to suggest such a defense.