Fluent Essays

Variations in qualitative research designs exist and new ones continue to be advanced and refined. However, there is a basic set of research designs used in most qualitative research uses one of the four common qualitative research designs. Write an introduction on the use of qualitative design for a literature review. Narrative Research Designs Case Study Research Designs Ethnographic Research Designs Grounded Theory Research use the 10 articles i will provide or add additional references as needed.(must have 10) and Describe the research design used in each of the 10 articles. Evaluate the application of qualitative decision support tools and techniques used in each article. Identify and critique decision-making models and supporting concepts and theories used in each article. Include an assessment (conclusion) of how the described research designs could be used to create the research design for a final literature review project in age discrimination in the business environment. adea_the_state_of_age_discrimination_and_older_workers_inthe_us.pdf age_discrimination_in_the_workplace.pdf age_discrimination_in_the_workplace__the_more_things_change___x2026_.pdf age_discrimination.pdf contentserver.asp.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview The State of Age Discrimination and Older Workers in the U.S. 50 Years After the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) JUNE 2018 Victoria A. Lipnic Acting Chair U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION The State of Age Discrimination and Older Workers in the U.S. 50 Years After the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by Victoria A. Lipnic Acting Chair U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission June 2018 Dear Reader, This month marks the 50th anniversary of the effective date of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the ADEA) -- one of the premier statutes enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). When I first joined the EEOC in April 2010, the job market was very different than it is today. The effects of the Great Recession were still being widely felt throughout the economy, and predictions were that it would take the nation 10 years or more to recover from steep job losses. At the EEOC, we were concerned that these job losses would hit older workers particularly hard. Accordingly, shortly after I joined the Commission, one of the first public Commission meetings we held in November 2010, was about the “Impact of the Economy on Older Workers.” Fast forward to today, and as of this month, the nation is experiencing its lowest unemployment rate in 18 years. Instead of shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs each month, the economy is gaining them. This is very good news for America’s workers. But consider this: older workers who lose a job have much more difficulty finding a new job than younger workers. A 54-year-old worker who may have lost his job in early 2008 at the beginning of the Great Recession is now 64 years old. The average unemployment duration for a 54-yearold was almost a year, and it may have taken that person two or three years to find a new job. Further, that new job may not have been on a par with the one he had before. To make up for that financial loss, he will likely need to work longer than originally planned. Now consider a 54-year-old worker who loses her job in today’s economy. Today, jobs are plentiful and conditions are much more favorable for finding new jobs compared to 10 years ago. But, there is one constant for today’s 54-year-old and the one from 10 years ago -- age discrimination. As experts testified at the EEOC’s meeting in June 2017 on The ADEA @ 50 -- More Relevant Than Ever, age discrimination remains a significant and costly problem for workers, their families, and our economy. A few additional points for your consideration. Today’s Baby Boomers range in age from 54 to 72 and because of that nearly 20-year span in age, they have widely different considerations about work and retirement. While about 10,000 Baby Boomers retire every day, many have inadequate savings for retirement. Work life has changed dramatically since Boomers entered the workforce. Instead of a career spanning one industry and a few positions as was expected at the beginning of their careers, most workers today are expected to have 11 different jobs in the modern, dynamic economy. Right behind the Boomers, the leading edge of Generation X are now in their early 50’s. And, in 2016, Millennials surpassed the Baby Boomers as the largest segment of the workforce in 2016. The scene having now been set, I offer this report, marking the 50th anniversary of when the ADEA took effect, culminating a year-long recognition by the EEOC of the importance of the ADEA as a significant civil rights law. While it is not exhaustive (as there are treatises devoted to the ADEA, after all), it is meant to serve as a guide to the history and significant developments of the law. I hope the report also serves to put to rest outdated assumptions about older workers (who should more aptly be described as “experienced workers”) and about age discrimination, which harm workers, their families and our economy. Today’s experienced workers are healthier, more educated, and working and living longer than previous generations. Age-diverse teams and workforces can improve employee engagement, performance, and productivity. Experienced workers have talent that our economy cannot afford to waste. I want to thank the staff at the EEOC for their contributions to this report, especially Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, whose passion for all things ADEA is priceless (and perhaps ageless). Victoria A. Lipnic Acting Chair U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission June 2018 2 I. Overview In 1967, Congress enacted the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) to prohibit age discrimination in the workplace and promote the employment of older workers. The ADEA was an integral part of congressional actions in the 1960s to ensure equal opportunity in the workplace,1 along with the Equal Pay Act of 19632 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.3 Together, these laws transformed the workplace by breaking down barriers to opportunity and building foundations of equality and fairness. In passing the ADEA, Congress recognized that age discrimination was caused primarily by unfounded assumptions that age impacted ability.4 To prevent and stop such arbitrary discrimination, the ADEA requires employers to consider individual ability, rather than assumptions about age, in making an employment decision. A few years after the ADEA was enacted, the Senate Special Committee on Aging noted that the “ADEA was enacted, not only to enforce the law, but to provide the facts that would help change attitudes.”5 It was commonly assumed that at some age and in some jobs, age limited the abilities of older workers.6 Today we ask: have attitudes about older workers, their abilities, and age discrimination changed in the wake of the ADEA over the past 50 years? Have employment practices changed to promote the employment of older workers? “The ADEA, enacted in 1967 as part of an ongoing congressional effort to eradicate discrimination in the workplace, reflects a societal condemnation of invidious bias in employment decisions. The ADEA is but part of a wider statutory scheme to protect employees in the workplace nationwide. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352, 357-58 (1995) (citations omitted). 1 2 Pub. L. 88-38, 77 Stat. 56 (1963) (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)). 3 Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, 253-66 (1964) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.). 4 U.S. Dept of Labor, The Older American Worker: Age Discrimination in Employment, Report of the Secretary of Labor Under Section 715 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1965) (“Wirtz Report”); reprinted in EEOC LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT (1981). 5 Improving the Age Discrimination Law, A Working Paper, S. SPEC. COMM. ON AGING, 93 Cong. 1st Sess. III (1973). 6 Wirtz Report, supra note 4 at 21. 3 This report examines the current state of age discrimination and older workers in the U.S. 50 years after the ADEA took effect in June 1968. It begins with a brief review of the history of the ADEA and its enforcement by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the EEOC. It describes the significant changes in who the older worker of today is compared to the typical older worker of 1967. Today’s older workers are more diverse and more educated than previous generations. They are healthier and working and living longer. The women and men confronting age discrimination today are in all parts of our country -- in rural and urban communities, in blue and white-collar jobs, in service and tech industries, and are of all races, ethnicities and income. Despite these dramatic changes, today’s older workers still confront unfounded and outdated assumptions about age and ability and age discrimination persists.7 Despite decades of research finding that age does not predict ability or performance, employers often fall back on precisely the ageist stereotypes the ADEA was enacted to prohibit.8 After 50 years of a federal law whose purpose is to promote the employment of older workers based on ability, age discrimination remains too common and too accepted. Indeed, 6 out of 10 older workers have seen or experienced age discrimination in the workplace and 90 percent of those say it is common.9 This report acknowledges the significant harm and costs to older workers, their families, and employers that age discrimination causes. It is time to put to rest outdated and unfounded assumptions about age, older workers, and discrimination. Changing practices can help change attitudes. This report concludes with promising practices for employers to not only avoid age discrimination, but to recognize the value of a multi-generational workforce. Simply put, our economy cannot afford to waste the knowledge, talent, and experience of older workers.10 7 Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Report of the Taskforce on the Aging of the American Workforce, 20 (2008). Daniel Kohrman & Mark Hayes, Employers Who Cry “RIF” and the Courts That Believe Them, 23 HOFSTRA LAB. & EMP. L.J. 153 (2005) (showing that bias against older people is more deeply embedded than other forms of bias including race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation). 8 9 Rebecca Perron, The Value of Experience: Age Discrimination Against Older Workers Persists, AARP (forthcoming 2018) (study conducted in September 2017 of 3,900 of those aged 45 and older either working or looking for work). “If more skilled workers over 60 stayed in the workforce, it would make a significant impact on reducing the skilled worker shortage in the United States.” Written Testimony of John Challenger, CEO, Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., The ADEA 50 -- More Relevant Than Ever, Meeting of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2017). 10 4 II. A Brief History of the ADEA A. The 1965 Wirtz Report Congress considered prohibiting age discrimination in employment as part of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 196211 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but amendments to include age as a protected characteristic failed.12 Instead, as part of Title VII, Congress directed the Secretary of Labor to make a “full and complete study of the factors which may tend to result in discrimination in employment because of age.”13 That report, “The Older American Worker, Age Discrimination in Employment,”14 which became known as the “Wirtz Report” (after W. Willard Wirtz, then-Secretary of Labor) provided the foundation for the ADEA. The Wirtz Report examined the nature, scope, and consequences of age discrimination in the workplace of the 1960s. It found that employers believed age impacted ability. It also found that without any factual basis or consideration of individual abilities, employers routinely barred workers in their 40s, 50s, and 60s from a wide range of jobs.15 H.R. 10144 sought to prohibit “arbitrary employment discrimination because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry or age.” H.R. Rep. No. 97-1370, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 2155 (1962). 11 12 The amendment to add a prohibition of age discrimination to Title VII failed in the House by a vote of 123 to 94. 110 Cong. Rec. 2596-99 (1964). The Senate rejected a similar amendment by a vote of 63 to 28. 110 Cong. Rec. 9911-13 (1964). Some ADEA historians claim that the move to add age discrimination to Title VII was intended to defeat passage, like the move to add sex discrimination. See Daniel P. O’Meara, PROTECTING THE GROWING NUMBERS OF OLDER WORKERS: THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT 11 (1989); Disparate Impact Analysis and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 64 MINN. L. REV. 1038, 1053 (1984); Alfred W. Blumrosen, Interpreting the ADEA: Intent or Impact, AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT: A COMPLIANCE AND LITIGATION MANUAL FOR LAWYERS AND PERSONNEL PRACTITIONERS, 106-15 (1982). Historians also disagree on the reasons Congress added sex to Title VII. J. Freeman, How Sex Got into Title VII: Persistent Opportunism as A Maker of Public Policy, 9 LAW AND INEQUALITY: A JOURNAL OF THEORY AND PRACTICE, 163–184 (1991); M.E. Gold, A Tale of Two Amendments: The Reasons Congress Added Sex to Title VII and Their Implication for The Issue of Comparable Worth, 19 DUQUESNE LAW REV. 453–477 (1980). 13 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, § 715, 78 Stat. 265 (1964). 14 Wirtz Report, supra note 4. “Physical capability is by far the most prominent single reason advanced for imposing upper age limits.” Id. at 8. 15 5 The Wirtz Report contrasted this finding that age discrimination derived mostly from unfounded assumptions about ability with its finding that discrimination based on race, national origin and religion derived from “dislike and hostility” – specifically “feelings about people entirely unrelated to their ability to do the job.”16 These findings led the Wirtz Report to characterize age discrimination as “different” from discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin,17 and recommended against adding age to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.18 The Wirtz Report found that one-half of employers used age limits to deny jobs to workers age 45 and older.19 It found vast differences in perceptions of age and physical ability with some employers refusing to hire workers after age 25 and others hiring workers until age 60 for jobs involving comparable physical capabilities.20 The Wirtz Report also examined factors such as health, education, technology and “institutional arrangements” such as personnel policies, seniority systems, and benefit plans that may impact older worker employment.21 Studies relating to health and age noted that older workers had fewer acute health issues than younger workers.22 However, because older workers were more susceptible to chronic conditions, they were more likely to be rejected for employment even though such conditions wouldn’t prevent them from working.23 Educational levels of older workers in the 1960s significantly impacted their employment prospects, as three-fifths of those age 55 and older had less than a high school degree.24 Technological changes at the time caused the displacement of traditional industries and geographic dislocation, and resulted in young 16 Id. at 5. 17 Id. at 6. The Wirtz Report did not compare the origins or motives driving sex discrimination to the motivations for age discrimination. 18 Id. at 1. 19 The 1965 Wirtz Report included a study of over 500 employers, and found that 3 out of 5 employers surveyed used age limits in hiring. Workers age 45 and older were barred from a quarter of all jobs, those 55 and older were barred from half of all jobs, and most jobs were barred to workers age 65 and older. Seventy percent of those employers surveyed who barred older workers from a wide variety of jobs reported no factual basis for the age cutoff they selected, while other employers hired and retained older workers for the same jobs at the same ages for which these employers barred them. Id. at 8. 20 Id. at 8. 21 Id. at 11-17. 22 Id. at 11. 23 Id. 24 Id. at 12. 6 workplaces in new industries where the hiring of older workers would be viewed as “exceptional.”25 Finally, the Wirtz Report considered the significant consequences of age discrimination on older workers, which it described as hardship and frustration, and on the economy with billion dollar costs in unemployment and early Social Security payouts, plus lost production and earnings. 26 The Report concluded with recommendations for a national policy against arbitrary discrimination in employment on the basis of age, actions to modify institutional arrangements that disadvantaged older workers, and actions to increase the hiring of older workers.27 President Lyndon B. Johnson proposed legislation based in part on the Wirtz Report.28 Amendments to the Administration’s bill by the leading proponents of a federal age discrimination bill, notably Senator Jacob Javits and Senator Ralph Yarborough, 29 led to the enactment of the ADEA on December 15, 1967.30 The legislation took effect on June 12, 1968.31 B. The 1967 ADEA Recognizing the challenge of changing both employment practices and attitudes about age and ability,32 Congress set forth ambitious purposes for the ADEA: 25 Id. at 14. 26 Id. at 18-19. 27 Id. 28 See 113 Cong. Rec. 1377, 2199-2200 (1967). 29 See AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967, S. REP. NO. 723, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 13-14 (1967) (statement of Sen. Javits). In the House, John H. Dent and Carl D. Perkins were the leading proponents of the ADEA. 30 The House approved H.R. 13054 on December 4, 1967 by a vote of 344 to 13. 113 Cong. Rec. 34752 (Dec. 4, 1967). By unanimous consent, the Senate approved amendments to S.830 from the House bill. 113 Cong. Rec. 35055-57 (Dec. 5, 1967). The House, by unanimous consent, concurred on December 6, 1967. 113 Cong. Rec. 35132 (Dec. 6, 1967). President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill on December 15, 1967. (113 Cong. Rec. 37125 (Dec. 15, 1967). Pub. L. No. 90-202, 81 Stat. 607 (1967). 31 Pub. L. No. 90-202, § 15, 81 Stat. 607 (1967) (effective 180 days after enactment). 32 As Senator Yarborough, one of the leading sponsors of the ADEA, explained: a great deal of the problem stems from ignorance: there is simply a widespread irrational belief that once men and women are past a certain age they are no longer capable of performing even some of the most routine jobs. 113 Cong. Rec. 31254 (1967); See Improving the Age Discrimination Law, supra note 5, at III. 7 It is therefore the purpose of this chapter to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age; to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment; to help employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment.33 Congress crafted a statute based on provisions from both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).34 The ADEA shares Title VII’s purpose to eliminate discrimination from the workplace.35 The ADEA’s prohibitions were taken verbatim from Title VII,36 as was its narrow exception for the use of age as a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).37 Courts interpret this language from Title VII, including its prohibitions and the BFOQ exception, to apply with “equal force” to the ADEA’s substantive provisions.38 The remedies of the ADEA, by contrast, flow from the FLSA. When initially enacted, Congress limited ADEA coverage to individuals age 40 to 6439 and again directed the Secretary of Labor to study the ages protected by the statute.40 33 29 U.S.C. § 621(b). 34 AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967, S. REP. NO. 723, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. 13-14 (1967); AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967, H.R. REP. NO. 805, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. (1967). “There are important similarities between the two statutes, to be sure, in their aims -- the elimination of discrimination from the workplace -- and in their substantive prohibitions.” Lorillard, Inc. v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 584 (1978); See Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U.S. 750, 756 (1979) (ADEA and Title VII share a common purpose). 35 “[T]the prohibitions of the ADEA were derived in haec verba from Title VII.” Lorillard, 434 U.S. at 584. The Court cited to both prohibitions in Title VII § 703(a)(1) and (2), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1), (2), in comparing the almost identical language in the ADEA’s prohibitions §§4(a)(1), (2), 29 U.S.C. §§ 623(a)(1), (2). Id. at n. 12. 36 37 Compare 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1), with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(1). 38 See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 (1985); Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell, 472 U.S. 400, 414, n.19 (1985). “The prohibitions in this Act shall be limited to individuals who are ... Purchase answer to see full attachment