3 ms·

How awkward would it be to have the 35+ requirement be outlawed. Would certainly be interesting to read those legal arguments. Edit: I meant 35+ not 40+. Upda

• TheDong 5y ago
  It would be quite tricky to outlaw. It's perfectly legal to have "years of experience" requirement, so for example you could have a requirement of: "Communication with spoken language is a valuable part of the job. We require all applicants to have 35+ years of experience speaking one or more languages". That's practically a requirement that you're 40/45+ without ever mentioning age.
  • gmadsen 5y ago
    That seems like a court case at least. You would need to prove there is any difference in language skill from someone with 15 years versus 35 years, otherwise it is just an age requirement superficially disguised as a needed skill requirement
    • bachmeier 5y ago
      > That seems like a court case at least. For what? Youth is not a protected class. Discriminate against them all you want. > You would need to prove there is any difference in language skill from someone with 15 years versus 35 years, otherwise it is just an age requirement superficially disguised as a needed skill requirement Age discrimination is different from other discrimination cases. It's really hard to win, for instance[1]. The company doesn't have to prove anything. The worker would have to prove that it was explicit age discrimination. For other types of discrimination, like race, the only thing that needs to be shown is differences in outcomes. [1] https://www.nextavenue.org/what-it-takes-win-age-discrimination-suit/ https://www.nextavenue.org/what-it-takes-win-age-discriminat...
• freeopinion 5y ago
  Are you referring to the constitutional requirement for USA presidential candidates?