• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Indirect age discrimination?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

BuckWallace

Junior Member
Hello, I have a concern that I may be being indirectly discriminated against based on my age. This may be a long story, but I think it is necessary to provide a background.

The company I work for assigns salary grades to positions, each with a specified range of possible salaries. At the age of 25, I applied for a position at a salary grade 10 (I understand these numbers are arbitrary, but they will provide a frame of reference). This was substantially higher than my previous salary. I ended up being offered the position, but at a grade 9 (one grade lower) due to the fact that I didn't possess experience listed in the job posting. I completely understood this and accepted the position at the lower grade.

Six months into the position, I was given a substantial raise due to excellent performance, which of course I was happy about. However, after discussions with my peers, I found out that I was still underpaid compared to them. I will also add that another person was hired on at the same time as me. He was in his 50s and was brought in at a grade 14, with the exact same job responsibilities. I was even told by my manger that my performance was better than his.

After my first year and subsequent annual review, I received an excellent review and another substantial raise. There were no areas of attention that were brought up as far as me "getting up to speed" on the experience which prohibited me from receiving a higher grade. My manager gave high praises and insisted that she was "trying to get me to where I needed to be" as far as salary was concerned. I was told I required less "managing" and performed better than my peers in the main areas of the job, while even contributing additional work that my peers weren't responsible for. I greatly appreciated the praises and feedback, but began to wonder what "where I needed to be" was, and why I wasn't getting it already if I was performing equal to or better than my higher-paid peers.

After approximately 2 1/2 years (now age 28) and another excellent annual review, I found myself at a grade 12. I then applied for a recently-vacated position within my same group/job area, which was posted at a grade 15. The person who left the position had 40+ years of experience and was making very good money. I didn't expect to receive the same salary or grade, and was eventually offered the position at a grade 13 (two grades lower than posted, but one grade higher than my current grade).

Now, to be clear, I am not questioning the decision to offer me the position at a lower grade and I was very grateful for the advancement opportunity as I knew it would create the potential for higher earnings, as well as an immediate raise.

Here is where I have a concern: as I mentioned earlier, I knew I was making less than my peers and contributing as much as or more, as was supported by my documented annual reviews and praises from upper management. The shocker came when my old position was posted at a grade 14, which was two grades higher than the grade I held in the position, one grade higher than my new position, four grades higher than the original posting 2 1/2 years ago when I accepted it, and five grades higher than what I was brought in at. The real kicker is that the requirements are exactly the same, barring a confusing "5-7 years of experience requirement", which was proven by me to be completely unnecessary for the position.

The requirements for the job actually DO NOT require that experience, and I feel as if that is added to indirectly disqualify younger candidates from being eligible for the higher salary grade even though the actual job does not rely on that experience, as was evidenced by me performing as well as or better than my peers. They even told me that I would be greatly missed and "impossible to replace", yet they are replacing me with a much higher salary grade for the exact same work.

No additional responsibilities are being added, and I think they realize they won't be able to hire any qualified candidates for what I was being paid, unless of course they find another young candidate without the "required experience" so they can low-ball them. Another former peer even expressed confusion as to why the posted grade on my old position was so high.

Basically, is there any merit to my concern based on the fact that the arbitrary "years of experience" requirement has no bearing at all on the job itself? Why would they be willing to hire a candidate as young as myself without the experience and be fine with giving them the same responsibilities. I can see if the younger "inexperienced" candidate was given adjusted responsibilities, but if they're given the same job to do and are exceeding at doing so, how can that experience requirement be justified? I know Federal law only protects older workers (over 40) from being discriminated against, but Oregon law (my state) prohibits discrimination based on age if you're 18 or older.

Thank you, and any advice would be much appreciated!
 
Last edited:


xylene

Senior Member
Paying some workers more than others for the same position is salary negotiation, not discrimination.

Years of experience is not arbitrary. It is directly quantifiable.
 

BuckWallace

Junior Member
Thanks, I get what you're saying. However, I wouldn't call this "negotiation" when HR denies a posted salary grade based on "lack of experience", yet still offers the job with the same job description and responsibilities. I can see if I were just denied the position because I didn't meet the nonsensical years-of-experience, but to be offered the job, asked to do the same work, exceed at the work and still be denied comparable salary solely based on "experience" and not quantifiable job performance seems a little suspect. Also, to have my vacated position be posted at a higher salary than I held for the exact same job doesn't seem right.

Does what I'm saying make sense? I'm not complaining that I couldn't negotiate, but that I was denied a salary for a position that I meet all of the functional requirements for except the arbitrary years-of-experience, yet was still hired to and was expected to do the same work.

Also, years of experience is quantifiable in the sense that you can tell how long someone has worked in that field, but it doesn't measure performance, especially after I've proven myself that I can exceed in the position.
 

ajkroy

Member
Thanks, I get what you're saying. However, I wouldn't call this "negotiation" when HR denies a posted salary grade based on "lack of experience", yet still offers the job with the same job description and responsibilities. I can see if I were just denied the position because I didn't meet the nonsensical years-of-experience, but to be offered the job, asked to do the same work, exceed at the work and still be denied comparable salary solely based on "experience" and not quantifiable job performance seems a little suspect. Also, to have my vacated position be posted at a higher salary than I held for the exact same job doesn't seem right.

Does what I'm saying make sense? I'm not complaining that I couldn't negotiate, but that I was denied a salary for a position that I meet all of the functional requirements for except the arbitrary years-of-experience, yet was still hired to and was expected to do the same work.

Also, years of experience is quantifiable in the sense that you can tell how long someone has worked in that field, but it doesn't measure performance, especially after I've proven myself that I can exceed in the position.
I see your logic, but I think it is flawed. Let me explain why:

If I understand you correctly, you were hired for two positions for which you did not have the requisite previous experience. Instead of not hiring you for that position, HR gave it to you at a lesser pay grade. After enough time for them to recognize that you can handle the job, you feel that you should be given the original hiring salary that was offered to candidates with the posted experience (which you still do not have). What other people are making doesn't matter, because they are likely also receiving annual pay raises. Unless those raises are capped, you will never "catch up" to others who have been employed for many years (although they probably negotiated a lower starting salary, but you get my point). You might have a point to make the request after you have achieved the number of years of experience the initial offer required...but maybe not.

The ultimate question you have to ask yourself is: are you happy with your job, and, absent outside factors, are you content with your remuneration? If you went in for an interview today and they offered you what you are currently making, would you be happy or disappointed? Be wary about thinking about what other people are making; once you start down that road, it usually just leads to contempt and bitterness. Your employer seems pleased with your work, and you seem to like working there. Will an extra pay grade really make that much of a difference to you?
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
I'll put it a lot more bluntly - you've got no claim for either direct or indirect age discrimination based on what you've posted. Unless you've got a lot more than you've posted here, you've only got your own opinion that years of experience has no bearing on the job; an opinion I can promise you that few people who will be reviewing your situation will share.
 

BuckWallace

Junior Member
I see your logic, but I think it is flawed. Let me explain why:

If I understand you correctly, you were hired for two positions for which you did not have the requisite previous experience. Instead of not hiring you for that position, HR gave it to you at a lesser pay grade. After enough time for them to recognize that you can handle the job, you feel that you should be given the original hiring salary that was offered to candidates with the posted experience (which you still do not have). What other people are making doesn't matter, because they are likely also receiving annual pay raises. Unless those raises are capped, you will never "catch up" to others who have been employed for many years (although they probably negotiated a lower starting salary, but you get my point). You might have a point to make the request after you have achieved the number of years of experience the initial offer required...but maybe not.

The ultimate question you have to ask yourself is: are you happy with your job, and, absent outside factors, are you content with your remuneration? If you went in for an interview today and they offered you what you are currently making, would you be happy or disappointed? Be wary about thinking about what other people are making; once you start down that road, it usually just leads to contempt and bitterness. Your employer seems pleased with your work, and you seem to like working there. Will an extra pay grade really make that much of a difference to you?

Thanks for the reply, ajkroy. I really am happy and have no intention of taking any action against my employer, I was just curious. My real issue is that I meet every requirement for the job, do well at the job, yet am under-compensated based on my lack of experience, even though it really has no bearing on job performance. It's really just something else they can add into the description to further adjust salary, when really it doesn't mean anything other than showing how long you've worked in a field. It's just the fact that they know me, can see my exemplary performance history, yet still use my lack of time in the workforce against me as far as compensation. They obviously value me, but they know they can get me for "cheap" because of my lack of years on the job.

My wife is in nursing (only a few years of experience herself), and one of her longer-tenured coworkers is constantly taking smoke breaks, slacking on the job, and basically just not performing anywhere near her peers. Regardless of job skills, this coworker can "check the box" for years of experience, even though it really has no bearing on her performance. It's just an example that how long you've held a job doesn't really mean anything, and compensation should be based mainly on performance.

Anyway, thanks again for the reply. Take care.
 

splasher

Junior Member
Thanks for the reply, ajkroy. I really am happy and have no intention of taking any action against my employer, I was just curious. My real issue is that I meet every requirement for the job, do well at the job, yet am under-compensated based on my lack of experience, even though it really has no bearing on job performance. It's really just something else they can add into the description to further adjust salary, when really it doesn't mean anything other than showing how long you've worked in a field. It's just the fact that they know me, can see my exemplary performance history, yet still use my lack of time in the workforce against me as far as compensation. They obviously value me, but they know they can get me for "cheap" because of my lack of years on the job.

My wife is in nursing (only a few years of experience herself), and one of her longer-tenured coworkers is constantly taking smoke breaks, slacking on the job, and basically just not performing anywhere near her peers. Regardless of job skills, this coworker can "check the box" for years of experience, even though it really has no bearing on her performance. It's just an example that how long you've held a job doesn't really mean anything, and compensation should be based mainly on performance.

Anyway, thanks again for the reply. Take care.

It's called life, and life isn't fair. Eventually, you will reach an age where you can be passed over for promotions and raises, and even fired, because you are too old. If your boss is like most, you won't be told it's because of your age, because age is a protected class (over 40)- but you'll know it is. If you are under 40, you don't really have any age protection under law.

Then, there's the possibility that you aren't as smoking hot an employee as you think you are. Keep that in mind. Concentrate on your own job and your own progress and less on what other people are doing and you'll be much happier.
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
It's called life, and life isn't fair. Eventually, you will reach an age where you can be passed over for promotions and raises, and even fired, because you are too old. If your boss is like most, you won't be told it's because of your age, because age is a protected class (over 40)- but you'll know it is. If you are under 40, you don't really have any age protection under law.

Then, there's the possibility that you aren't as smoking hot an employee as you think you are. Keep that in mind. Concentrate on your own job and your own progress and less on what other people are doing and you'll be much happier.

Oregon - the OP's state - actually does offer protection against age discrimination, in addition to Federal law. He does not need to be 40 to successfully show age discrimination in his state.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top