In this era of affirmative action programs and similar initiatives, many people in California are satisfied that society is working harder to prevent discrimination in employment. However, people in protected categories continue to face troubling experiences in too many industries. For example, a survey conducted by staffing firm Indeed found that tech workers over 40 perceive themselves as quite vulnerable to age-based discrimination. Forty-three percent of respondents reported that they periodically worried about losing their jobs due to their age.
Though race discrimination has rightfully received a lot of attention in the news media, some prominent thinkers have argued that age discrimination deserves greater scrutiny. At least in the tech industry, turning 40 is statistically associated with increased exposure to age-related employment discrimination. Some commentators have argued that religious discrimination and disability discrimination have historically caused more harm than ageism. Nevertheless, all employers who illegally disregard employee rights are facing increased societal pressure.
Despite the disparate impact of various forms of discrimination, academics have contended that all wage discrimination degrades society's commitment to civil rights. In the United States, a 1967 law forbids employers from discriminating against employees over 40 due to their age. Passed on a bipartisan basis, this law applies to federal employees and private sector workers alike.
When a person experiences ageism or any other type of workplace discrimination, a qualified attorney can likely provide a helpful consultation. Whether a person has experienced age-based harassment or unfair termination, it is sometime necessary to defend one's employee rights through the civil court system. For example, an employer might terminate an employee on a flimsy pretext, despite having previously belittled the employee's age in person and through email. A discrimination attorney could start reviewing the evidence to see if it is provable that the termination in question was unlawful.