Not continue to hire an employee because of age

[QuestionGuy101]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Is there a certain age that an employer can legally decide not to hire an employee based on his age.

Can an employer terminate an employment because the employee has reached 62 or 65 years old?

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Is there a certain age that an employer can legally decide not to hire an employee based on his age.

Can an employer terminate an employment because the employee has reached 62 or 65 years old?

The "magical" age is actually 40, Federally.

CA might have something extra. Given that it's California.

 

[LdiJ]

The "magical" age is actually 40, Federally.

CA might have something extra. Given that it's California.

Just to clarify, its is not legal to discriminate, based on age, for anyone over 40. So no, an employer cannot refuse to hire someone based solely on age. An employer can have a company wide policy that mandates retiring at 65 I believe, unless the law has changed on that.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

And how does that work if someone cannot retire until 67 to get full benefits?

At 65, you get Medicare.

 

[cbg]

While I do not disagree with the above answers overall, I do want to add a clarification or two.

1.) It WOULD be legal to refuse to hire someone, on the basis of age, if the job itself is age-specific. For example, they need not consider someone in their 60's to model clothes for teenagers.

2.) If there are younger applicants who are more qualified, it is perfectly legal to hire the younger, more qualified applicant rather than the older, less qualified one.

 

[cbg]

Just to clarify, its is not legal to discriminate, based on age, for anyone over 40. So no, an employer cannot refuse to hire someone based solely on age. An employer can have a company wide policy that mandates retiring at 65 I believe, unless the law has changed on that.

This is only legal in very, very limited circumstances.

 

[QuestionGuy101]

While I do not disagree with the above answers overall, I do want to add a clarification or two.

1.) It WOULD be legal to refuse to hire someone, on the basis of age, if the job itself is age-specific. For example, they need not consider someone in their 60's to model clothes for teenagers.

2.) If there are younger applicants who are more qualified, it is perfectly legal to hire the younger, more qualified applicant rather than the older, less qualified one.

Is "refusing to hire someone" the same as "firing someone"?

I take your example to mean that in case two applicants apply for the same job, the employer has the right to hire the younger and more qualified one. Is it correct?

But what about if an older employee has been working for the employer already. Can the employer legally fire the existing and older employee in order to hire a younger and more qualified person to do the same job?

 

[Zigner]

Your question has been answered. You can't fire the 60 year old simply because he's 60.

 

[Silverplum]

Is "refusing to hire someone" the same as "firing someone"?

That's a question best asked at dictionary.com.

 

[cbg]

For the purpose of your question, yes. The same rules apply for refusal to hire as firing.

Now, how about telling us what's really going on instead of asking questions designed to get the answer you want whether it fits the situation or not?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

The exceptions basically would be to comply with a government regulation or CBA.

 

[QuestionGuy101]

For the purpose of your question, yes. The same rules apply for refusal to hire as firing.

Now, how about telling us what's really going on instead of asking questions designed to get the answer you want whether it fits the situation or not?

Not designing to get an answer I want. Actually I am just asking this question for someone else and just want to make sure I understand the replies as much as possible. Sorry if I have sounded that way.

I was truly thinking there might be a difference between refusing to hire a prospective employee and firing an existing employee. That's why I asked that question.

Anyway, thank you very much for all your help.

 

[LdiJ]

Not designing to get an answer I want. Actually I am just asking this question for someone else and just want to make sure I understand the replies as much as possible. Sorry if I have sounded that way.

I was truly thinking there might be a difference between refusing to hire a prospective employee and firing an existing employee. That's why I asked that question.

Anyway, thank you very much for all your help.

If they are fired solely due to their age, its a serious problem....and if they are claiming that their new hire is more qualified, well, they better be able to do that. A 60 year old has many years of experience, its not necessarily easy to prove that someone younger is more qualified.

 

[cbg]

Is "refusing to hire someone" the same as "firing someone"?

I take your example to mean that in case two applicants apply for the same job, the employer has the right to hire the younger and more qualified one. Is it correct?

But what about if an older employee has been working for the employer already. Can the employer legally fire the existing and older employee in order to hire a younger and more qualified person to do the same job?

Yes, IF it is because the younger person is more qualified. If it is because the younger person is, well, younger, than no.

The point we are trying to get across is that, with the very limited exception I already mentioned above, an older person cannot be discriminated against but he does not also get special privileges. Age is taken right off the table and ANY employment decisions, be it hiring, firing, transfers, lateral moves, promotions, demotions, discipline etc., are made without ANY consideration of age in either direction.