Introduction
According to Heneman, H., & Judge, T. (2015), disparate treatment is a way to prove allegations of staffing discrimination (p.59). A disparate claim is one which an employee makes against an employer. It is based on proving intentional differential treatment (discrimination) based on color, sex or in this case, to those aged 40 and older. This age group fall under the protected characteristics of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967. The ADEA and the Civil Rights Act are governed and enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
This Act specifically states that it is unlawful for an employer
1. “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age” (Heneman, H., & Judge, T. 2015, p. 69).; And 2. “to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s age.” (Heneman, H., & Judge, T. 2015, p. 69).
Heneman, H., et al (2015) state that these provisions are interpreted to mean that it is not unlawful to favor an older worker over a younger worker, even if both workers are aged 40 or older (p.69)
Arguments in Favor of Gus Tavus
Mr. Tavus has several factors in his favor which may show that he was in fact, discriminated against. However, in order to prove his case he would need to establish a prima facie to prove that discrimination has occurred. The criteria to justify the prima facie are that the Mr. Tavus needs to belong to a protected class. That Mr. Tavus should have applied for, and was qualified for the applied position. Mr. Tavus was then rejected from the applied for position and finally that position remained open and BPIC continued to look for and interview...