Dive Brief:
- Nine in 10 workers over the age of 50 said they have experienced ageism in the workplace, according to a Resume Now survey of 878 workers conducted in May.
- The survey revealed “a major disconnect between older and younger workers,” with 83% of older workers saying they felt occasionally disrespected, and 8% saying younger colleagues were dismissive or patronizing.
- The disrespect also translated into bias related to pay and opportunities: More than half of respondents said they were paid less than younger colleagues for the same work, with 15% saying they were passed over for promotions and 12% saying they were pressured to retire or were targeted during layoffs.
Dive Insight:
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act outlaws discrimination against workers 40 and over — but the problem remains pervasive, in part, because it appears to be more widely accepted than other forms of bias, an attorney previously told HR Dive.
Disrespect like the kind reported to Resume Now can turn into valid age discrimination claims when comments directly reference or imply assumptions about age. For example, in 2022, a court filing showed that IBM executives referred to older workers as “dinobabies” in internal communications; that case was settled out of court later that year. Questions about when a worker intends to retire have similarly led to lawsuits.
Advocacy groups like AARP have recommended incorporating age as an element in DEI training. Through such training, employers can bring awareness to conscious and unconscious forms of age discrimination, and break down myths and stereotypes, a 2024 article for AARP’s Employer Resource Center said.
Employers also need to be on the lookout for potentially biased systems for hiring, promotion and other tasks as artificial intelligence becomes a more common feature in HR software. HR platform Workday Inc. currently faces a collective-action lawsuit alleging its AI-based applicant recommendation system discriminated against applicants 40 and older. In a recent development in the case, a judge ordered the company to provide an exhaustive list of employers who used its software.
