New Jersey employment laws prohibit discrimination in the workplace on the basis of numerous factors. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) offers protection to more categories than its federal counterpart, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although other federal statutes cover areas that are omitted from Title VII. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, for example, protects older employees from various adverse employment actions based on their age. New Jersey law tends to offer broader protection in this area as well, without the lower age limit found in the ADEA. A putative class action currently pending in a New York City federal court asserts claims for age discrimination under the ADEA and several state statutes. Rusis, et al v. Int’l Business Machines Corp., No. 1:18-cv-08434, complaint (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 17, 2018).
The term “age discrimination” principally refers to adverse employment actions against older individuals, and in favor of younger individuals. The ADEA expressly limits its protections to people who are forty years old or older. 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). The statute prohibits various discriminatory acts and disparate treatment against protected individuals because of their age. As long as a person meets the ADEA’s age criterion, however, it is possible for them to bring a claim for discrimination against younger employees in favor of older ones. The statute allows exceptions in situations “where age is a bona fide occupational qualification.” Id. at § 623(f)(1). The NJLAD does not set a minimum age for protection against age discrimination. See N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-12. An individual must, however, be at least eighteen years old—i.e. not subject to child labor laws—to assert a claim.
The allegations in the Rusis lawsuit follow the familiar scenario of discrimination against older workers in favor of younger ones. This scenario seems to be particularly common in the tech industry, which is often alleged to favor youth among job applicants, and to believe that older workers are less likely to be familiar with newer technologies. According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the defendant began laying off employees in 2012 in an effort to recruit younger workers. It has allegedly laid off as many as twenty thousand people over the age of forty since then. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant has actively recruited among the age group commonly known as “Millennials,” which they say the company defines as people born after 1980, in an effort “to make the face of [the defendant] younger.” Rusis, complaint at 4.
The three named plaintiffs range in age from fifty-five to sixty-seven. They claim to have worked for the defendant for a combined total of eighty-two years, or an average of twenty-seven years, four months. Each plaintiff alleges that they were laid off because of their age, as well as being passed over for promotion and other opportunities in favor of younger workers. They claim that the defendant uses a system that “shields its youngest employees from layoff.” Id. at 5. They further allege that the defendant “flag[s] the individuals who have been laid off…as ineligible for consideration for other positions” within the company. Id. at 6. The lawsuit alleges a class of similarly-situated workers in California and North Carolina.
The Resnick Law Group’s experienced and knowledgeable team of employment lawyers represents employees, former employees, and job applicants in New Jersey and New York. Please contact us online, at 973-781-1204, or at 646-867-7997 today to schedule a confidential consultation to see how we can assist you.
More Blog Posts:
Employment Discrimination Lawsuit Alleges Age, Race Discrimination by High-End Department Store, The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog, January 10, 2019
New Jersey Federal Court Rules for Employee in Age Discrimination Lawsuit, The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog, December 21, 2018
Certain Terms May Act as Code for Age Discrimination, Other Unlawful Employment Practices in New Jersey, The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog, May 19, 2016