3 ms·

Seems like they're breaking the law to me, but it's not completely black and white. In the odd chance it would happen, wouldn't saying "20+ years of experience

Seems like they're breaking the law to me, but it's not completely black and white. In the odd chance it would happen, wouldn't saying "20+ years of experience required", prevent anyone younger then 20 years from joining the company?

dlgeek 13y ago
Actually, in the US, discrimination against younger people isn't illegal - it's only illegal to discriminate the other way 'round.
- clone1018 13y ago
  Oh, did not know. Thanks!
- hkmurakami 13y ago
  and iirc only applies to 40+ years of age or something along those lines.
  - frostmatthew 13y ago
    40 is correct http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm
frankc 13y ago
It is actually legal to discriminate against young people. It's only illegal to discriminate against people over 40. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm Also, requiring experience is reasonable anyway since its easy to make a case about why it's required to do the work. I'd dying to here what kind of BS hand-waving argument could be constructed for why having too much experience prevents you from doing the work.
- jerrya 13y ago
  Hiring strippers. Must have no more than 30 years experience.
frostmatthew 13y ago
I'm not a lawyer but my guess is requiring years of experience isn't discrimination since it would only help, not hurt, the protected class (older workers).
- nieve 13y ago
  The minimum isn't the important part - they're putting a cap on experience at 12 years which will exclude the vast majority of protected workers, basically anyone who didn't switch careers very late.
  - frostmatthew 13y ago
    My response was to clone1018's comment/question that wouldn't anything saying X+ years of experience qualify as discrimination.
    - chetanahuja 13y ago
      The act of "discrimination" per se is fine. In fact, when you select one candidate among many, that's exactly what you're doing. Exercising discrimination. It's just required to be the right kind of discrimination -- based on actual qualifications and perceived capabilities to do the job at hand. What you are not allowed do is discriminate based on criteria that are not part of essential qualifications for the job. And I for one can't conceive of one single thing that disqualifies, say, Jeff Dean, from holding that job over a candidate a few years his junior.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  See disparate impact It would hurt a large class of older workers more than a class of younger workers.

dlgeek 13y ago

Actually, in the US, discrimination against younger people isn't illegal - it's only illegal to discriminate the other way 'round.

clone1018 13y ago
Oh, did not know. Thanks!
hkmurakami 13y ago
and iirc only applies to 40+ years of age or something along those lines.
- frostmatthew 13y ago
  40 is correct http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm

frankc 13y ago

It is actually legal to discriminate against young people. It's only illegal to discriminate against people over 40. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm Also, requiring experience is reasonable anyway since its easy to make a case about why it's required to do the work. I'd dying to here what kind of BS hand-waving argument could be constructed for why having too much experience prevents you from doing the work.

jerrya 13y ago
Hiring strippers. Must have no more than 30 years experience.

frostmatthew 13y ago

I'm not a lawyer but my guess is requiring years of experience isn't discrimination since it would only help, not hurt, the protected class (older workers).

nieve 13y ago
The minimum isn't the important part - they're putting a cap on experience at 12 years which will exclude the vast majority of protected workers, basically anyone who didn't switch careers very late.
- frostmatthew 13y ago
  My response was to clone1018's comment/question that wouldn't anything saying X+ years of experience qualify as discrimination.
  - chetanahuja 13y ago
    The act of "discrimination" per se is fine. In fact, when you select one candidate among many, that's exactly what you're doing. Exercising discrimination. It's just required to be the right kind of discrimination -- based on actual qualifications and perceived capabilities to do the job at hand. What you are not allowed do is discriminate based on criteria that are not part of essential qualifications for the job. And I for one can't conceive of one single thing that disqualifies, say, Jeff Dean, from holding that job over a candidate a few years his junior.
DannyBee 13y ago
See disparate impact It would hurt a large class of older workers more than a class of younger workers.