Age discrimination cases are usually won by the numbers. What I mean by that is usually someone isn't going to put derogatory statements about someones age in writing. You will generally have to prove the case by showing statistically younger workers are being given favorable treatment over older workers. The age cut-off is age 40. It is very important that you know how to proceed at the IHRC and can properly draft discovery and properly answer the discovery that the company will send to you. For this reason you should consult with an experienced and aggressive employment law attorney.

So once your age discrimination case makes it to the IHRC what then? Well the good news is you are probably going to end up with a trial in front of an administrative law judge. Unless you have a baseless case this will happen. And the chances of your case being baseless at this point are not great because the case would not have made it from the IDHR. At trial you can ask for your job back which puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the company to settle. You can imagine how uncomfortable a company would be if they are ordered to take an employee back after they fired the employee. You can also ask for attorney fees, lost wages and benefits and money for emotional distress as well as any medical bills you may have incurred, including money for a therapist. Make sure you are prepared for your trial at the IHRC and maximize your chances of success.

Age discrimination in the workplace can also create a hostile work environment for all employees because of the message it sends. If an person is able to show substantial evidence with the IDHR, he can then file a complaint with the Illinois Human Rights Commission ("IHRC") for a trial in front of an administrative law judge. Remember that people over 40 are starting to near the end of their work career so any negative job action against them can really ruin their career.

I did some research and found a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It is Cortemoller v. Int'l Furniture Mktg., Inc. In that case Mr. Cortemoller was replaced with some technology that did his job as a communicator. He sued under the age discrimination laws and the district court granted summary judgment to his employer. He appealed and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower courts ruling. In short, the court held that technology does not amount to a younger employee. This case is very interesting and I am sure we will see similar challenges in other states and thus other circuits. In the future I could see a similar claim brought by other protected classes of people under for example sexual orientation.

My Chicago offices gets many calls from employee who are the victims of general harassment and unfortunately there isn't much I can do. However it is always a good idea to call my office or the office of an employment attorney to discuss because sometimes even though the boss is being a jerk and it seems like a general harassment case, he may only be yelling at you because you are the only female or only gay employee in which instance you may have a case.

The lawsuit also alleged that older employees were denied leadership training and laid off to make way for younger leaders. During discovery in the lawsuit the EEOC uncovered an employee e-mail describing then-CEO Jim McNerney’s “vision for leadership development” as “we should be developing 30 year olds with General Manager potential” and “He wants us to tap into the youth as participants in the leadership development.” These were all code words for get rid of the old workers and hire new younger ones. Well the EEOC did not give up and held the companies feet to the fire. A settlement this large should send a signal to other would be discriminating companies.

“The law requires employers to base employment decisions upon each person’s strengths and talents instead of relying upon generalized assumptions calculated around an employee’s age,” said EEOC attorney Michael Baldonado.

According to published accounts for over seven years, Cavalier Telephone’s mid-Atlantic region had a practice of not hiring applicants age 40 or older for sales account executive positions. In a very troubling practice Cavalier offered its employees a $500 bonus for referral of a “friend’s younger brother and sister.”

“Cavalier Telephone’s hiring practices penalized older applicants simply because of their age and that is illegal,” said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. “I am pleased that we were able to work out a resolution of this suit that provides relief for the victims of discrimination and brings the company’s practices into compliance with the law.”

To make matters worse for the company Keene received positive reviews in her two most recent performance appraisals and had twice been recommended for promotion. When you hear this kind of evidence it makes it obvious that the company was engaging in age discrimination. Throughout the course of her employment with Dillard’s, Keene’s managers made repeated references to her age, telling her she was too old for a sales job and that it might be time for her to let the younger managers take over. I am glad Keene hung in there and made the company pay her for the discrimination. This type of activity also creates a hostile work environment for all employees.

“Older workers have experience and skills that are too often overlooked,” said EEOC attorney Lynette A. Barnes

If older workers are treated in a different manner, it may become age discrimination, like it did in this case. You can see how expensive this type of behavior is for a company or in this case state agency. Like the state didn't have anything better to do with taxpayer dollars. In the future I am sure a new plan will be formulated that is not discriminatory in nature.

“The EEOC litigated and won on the issue of the illegality of this incentive plan.” said EEOC attorneyJohn Hendrickson.

My chicago office is seeing an increase in the number of college and university related claims of discrimination. I don't know if it is the arrogance of college administrators or the fact that the job market is so tight right now that people think they can engage in discrimination against workers. I am glad to see Mary Jarrett stick to her guns and not let the college push her around. There are protections available to people who file discrimination charges and hopefully the college learned a lesson on how to treat employees.

“It is plainly illegal to fire an employee for engaging in her statutorily protected right of filing a charge with the EEOC, and we are pleased that the parties were able to resolve this matter.” said EEOC attorney Faye A. Williams

However, during the discovery phase of the lawsuit the EEOC determined that within four months Tandy terminated another five supervisors, whose ages ranged from 75 to 58. If you are over the age of 40 you are protected by federal law regarding discrimination based on your age. The theory the EEOC alleged was that Tandy wanted a younger image and that is why they began to terminate older workers. This settlement should signal to Tandy that they can't behave this way.

EEOC Attorney Jim Sacher said “Making employment decisions based on one’s age is unlawful, and there is no excuse for such a practice in the 21 st century.”

The end result was that the senior firefighters kept working but did not receive credit for their service once they reaced 62. The lawsuit claims the age restriction violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). You can see how much money this bad policy costs the taxpayers and hopefully the government will get it right next time. You cannot be discriminated against because of your age and the government can't make two policies, one for older workers and one for younger workers.

"The fire department's system penalized older firefighters who continued to actively perform their duties and that was a violation of federal law," said EEOC attorney Adela Santos.

Usually it is difficult to prove racial discrimination because people don't just come out and make racial comments. Instead, you need evidence that shows an unequal treatment and pay difference that can only be explained by a difference in race or gender. I am glad Ms. Williams hung in there and fought for her rights.

“This decree will remind KOKH Channel 25, Sinclair and all news organizations to treat their employees equally as required by law, including women and people of color, who traditionally have been the victims of job discrimination,” said Barbara Seely, regional attorney of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Oklahoma. “The notice posting and training required by the consent decree will go far in educating the station’s managers on their employees’ right to work in an environment free of race and sex discrimination.”

According to the EEOC, the older applicants were separately instructed to write their ages on the top corner of their respective employment applications and then denied employment based on their age. This conduct is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"). The company acted in such a fashion as to not even hide their discriminatory conduct. I am glad the EEOC was able to hold the company accountable and stop future discrimination from taking place.

“Age stereotyping continues to remain a problem, and we hope employers proactively ensure that impediments are removed to allow older workers to apply for jobs equally.” said EEOC attorney Anna Park.

Allegedly two male managers at Cover Girls, both in their 30s, began harassing and discriminating against Mary Bassi, who was in her 50s, because of her age. The ADEA protects workers who are over the age of forty. The lawsuit goes on to claim that these managers referred to Bassi as old and made other negative comments about her age, including telling her she was exhibiting signs of Alzheimer’s disease. Bassi worked for the company for 13 years prior to being fired. This case could also have been filed based on gender discrimination because Bassi was being singled out because of her gender as well.

“Age discrimination cannot and will not be tolerated in any business or industry no matter what sector they occupy,” said EEOC attorney James Sacher.