Search results

Due to declining birth rates and increasing life expectancies, the developed countries can expect progressively ageing workforces comparative to those of Canada and the USA. As a result, employers will be less able to draw on a relatively inexpensive, younger labour force for replacements, and in order to maintain current employee levels there will be a greater need for the increasingly ageing working population to stay at work longer. An outline of some of the age‐related regulatory practices of the USA may indicate the way ahead for other developed countries as they try to introduce greater governmental protection of their older workforces.

The article aims to provide a discussion of societal norms concerning “attractiveness,” the existence of appearance discrimination in employment, the presence of “preferring the pretty”, and then the authors examine important civil rights laws that relate to such forms of discrimination. Finally, the authors apply ethical theories to determine whether such discrimination can be seen as moral or immoral.

It is a legal paper which covers all the laws related to discrimination based on look. Court cases and Americans laws related to this concept are reviewed and critically discussed.

The paper finds that appearance‐based discrimination is not illegal in the USA so long as it does not violate civil rights laws.

This research is limited to Federal and State laws in the USA and may not be relevant in other countries as the local laws might vary.

Managers and employees can protect themselves in the workplace from illegal discriminatory practices.

Employees know their rights and enhance their understanding of laws related to appearance, attractiveness, and why companies look to hire those who are considered “handsome”, “pretty” and “beautiful”.

This is an original and comprehensive paper by the authors.

This year the median age of American workers will hit 40 [8]. This is the age at which workers become older employees and most will fall under the umbrella of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The ADEA was passed in 1967 and is based on the precept that one's ability, not age, should determine whether a person gets or retains a job. It applies to all organisations which have 20 or more employees. It is supervised by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC).

The United States has attempted to remove the comparative disadvantage of people over 40 in the labour market by legislation against any age discrimination in the employment of people aged between 40 and 70, including the prohibition of age qualifications in job advertisements. This paper discusses the main provisions of the American Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967 and 1973) and then goes on to consider the extent of age discrimination in Britain by analysing a sample of age qualified vacancies notified to the British public employment service.

Looks at the US federal Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA) and gives statistics to suggest that more and more workers fall under the umbrella of this act. Gives a brief summary of its history before providing two case studies as examples. Concludes that the ussue remains prevalent and will probably increase as workers are getting older on average. Gives a brief technique for employer protection.

Outlines the findings of recent research in this area. Provides an overview of the issues faced within the hiring process in relation to age discrimination. Covers areas such as the difference between chronological and functional age and workers’ rights within the various Employment Acts. Gives an overview of the current position within the workforce before discussing the characteristics of older workers and giving some examples of recent case law in this area. Offers some suggestions for employees to help ensure fair hiring.

Every employer, unless he or she has no pool of applicants or potential applicants to choose from, engages in hiring choices. While the hiring process may vary, both from one employer to another and from one job to another, some form of screening occurs. In recent years, students of management have noted the proliferation of screening practices in the hiring process, especially in bringing new technologies such as medical and drug testing procedures. Testing and other screening practices, while wide‐ranging both with respect to their ends and means, have raised consistent patterns of concern among job‐seekers, public policy makers and managers themselves. In this monograph a variety of methods of screening and issues of public policy raised by screening procedures are discussed. An overview of United States law regulating the screening process is provided, together with future directions in the area of screening in the US.

Reasons for Age Discrimination During the course of history, one of the most used methods in teaching a younger worker a new skill was to match him or her up with a veteran worker who was quite competent in that skill. The young worker learned by observing, assisting, and practicing in the skill. The “student” spent many hours with the “master” for little or no pay. In time the student learned to become as capable as his teacher. In some societies the passing along of such skills from mentor to student was considered a noble tradition. The actions of corporate America within the past few years run quite contrary to such traditional teaching methods. The restructuring of companies has lead to an increasing perception that older workers are less necessary to corporate success. This trend began in the late 1980s and has continued through the present.

Appearance is part of a person's non-verbal communication, and looks are often associated with the perceived ‘attractiveness’ of individuals for hiring practices in the workplace. As such, physical attractiveness can be a ‘prized possession’ when it comes to leaving a positive impression on managers who are interviewing candidates. In the twenty-first century environment, our society seems to be more obsessed with physical appearance than ever before because society has conditioned us to associate beauty with other favourable characteristics. Of course, such appearance norms, regarding attractiveness, ‘good looks’ and beauty are linked to years of socialisation in culture, cultural norms and materialistic personality standards.

In a business context, managers and employers often make hiring decisions based on the appearance and attractiveness of the job applicants since outward appearance seems to play a significant role in which candidates eventually might get the job. Physically attractive job applicants and candidates tend to benefit from the unearned privilege, which often comes at a cost to others who are equally qualified. Preferring employees who are deemed to be attractive, and consequently discriminating against those who are perceived as unattractive, can present legal and ethical challenges for employers and managers. In this chapter, we provide a discussion and reflection of appearance-based hiring practices in the United States with relevant legal, ethical and practical implications for employers, human resources professionals and managers. We focus on ‘lookism’ or appearance discrimination, which is discrimination in favour of people who are physically attractive. As such, we examine federal, state and local laws regarding appearance discrimination in the American workplace. We also offer sustainable policy recommendations for employers, HR professionals and managers on how they can be fair to all candidates in order to hire, promote and retain the most qualified professionals in their departments and organisations.

Defines the two concepts before discussing disparate impact theory which is not cognisable under the US Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) through the use of case law. Lists the protected categories which are covered by disparate treatment and disparate impact law and cites the reasons under which a complaint can be made. Provides a suggested structure for addressing such claims within the company.