Three notably in 2017, the EEOC leveraged

years after the passing of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a new type of
discrimination was being brought to light. Those in the work force over 40 were
being ousted for younger, cheaper replacements. Worse yet, those who were over
40 looking to reenter the workforce were finding it very difficult. A three
year study by the department of Labor would confirm these allegations. From
this, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, or ADEA for short, was
born. The ADEA would seek to protect those seeking employment beyond the age of
40. This act would protect them in hiring, promotion, discharge, and compensation. (,

department of labors findings were compounded by another discovery. Workers
over 45 were barred from a quarter of these jobs, and workers over 65 were barred
from almost all of them. Jobs were disappearing and older workers were facing
the brunt of it. It was presented that when workers turned forty or forty-five
they faced some employment crisis. Over thirty-four percent were still
unemployed twenty-seven weeks after losing their jobs.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
Writers Experience
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
Writers Experience
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
Writers Experience
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

these harrowing details, it become evident that there was little legislation in
place to prevent employers from age discrimination. What little legislation
that was in place created confusion for business owners.  Thusly, the ADEA was passed by congress in
1967 and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

ADEA is still protecting workers to this day. Most notably in 2017, the EEOC leveraged
a case against Texas Roadhouse, Inc. Texas Roadhouse is a restaurant that was accused
of not hiring front of house employees over the age of 40. Front of house
positions are those that the customer can see like servers, hosts, and
bartenders. The restaurant was found guilty and ordered to pay $12 million to
applicants that were rejected in the span of 2007-2014. (,

second topic of discussion in the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The EPA is part of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. It prohibits
sex-based wage discrimination between men and women in the same establishment
who perform jobs that require equal skill, effort and responsibility under
similar working conditions. Congresswoman Winifred C. Stanley originally
introduced it in 1942 as H.R. 5056, Prohibiting Discrimination in Pay on
Account of Sex. It would not pass in its earliest form.

            The EPA is can be tricky to enforce.
For the EEOC to step in and examine a claim, the job in question must meet
certain criteria. The job does not have to be identical but they must involve similar
levels of skill, experience, education, and training. They must have similar
levels of physical and mental exertion. They also must have similar levels of
responsibility. If all these criteria are met and there is a discrepancy in pay
among genders, the EEOC will step in. It is important to note that there are
exceptions, such as seniority, merit systems, and incentive systems that pay
based on performance. (,

            There was some concern when the EPA
was passed that there would be economic consequences on the salaries and
employment opportunities of men and women. The EPA could potentially act as a
price floor on the salaries of men and women for particular jobs. These price
floors could consequently reduce the availability of jobs, as companies would
be able to afford them. Even still, the act passed with little opposition.

            Since the EPA has been enacted,
American women’s salaries have steadily risen from 62.3% of men’s earnings to
82.1% of men’s salary. These provisions were strengthened in 2005 when Hillary
Clinton introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act. This act was to make wages more
transparent by requiring employers to prove that wage discrepancies are tied to
legitimate business qualifications and not gender. It also prohibits companies
from taking retaliatory action against employees voicing their concern about
gender based wage discrimination.