Welcome to California, First in Age Discrimination

Wednesday’s decision by the California Supreme Court not to challenge the idea that older workers can be laid off with impunity if an employer cites the need to save money surely sent a shiver down the collective spine of millions of aging baby boomers. By refusing to hear the age discrimination case filed by a downsized 49-year-old aerospace worker, the court has set a bad precedent and opened up a Pandora’s box of problems.

Regardless of the bottom-line benefits of such a policy, allowing employers to target older workers for economic reasons is undeniably discriminatory. Companies seeking to slash personnel costs will inevitably single out older workers, whose years of service have earned them higher salaries and benefits than their younger and less experienced colleagues. And the social and economic costs of pursuing such a policy extend far beyond a company’s balance sheet.

The number of Americans age 40 and over will increase dramatically over the coming decades as the baby boom generation ages. The number of Americans age 65 and over will more than double over the next 30 years, from today’s 33 million to an estimated 75 million in the year 2030. Those numbers reflect the reality of a population that is living longer and will need to work longer because of the changing nature of retirement. Workers today know they cannot rely on pensions or Social Security and must take more responsibility for old age by saving and investing throughout their career. This new ruling completely undermines the concept of individual responsibility by putting workers on notice they can’t even expect to enjoy stable employment after age 40.

The court’s legal sanction for such early termination also flies in the face of another new demographic reality in this country: The senior market is a vast one and will continue to grow as the population ages. How can companies with a youthful and (in short term) profitable work force expect to effectively market goods and services to people of middle age and older? Can we expect a 25- or 30-year-old to understand the needs of a 50- or 60-year-old consumer? And what will happen to consumer confidence and spending patterns if older people feel insecure about their jobs?

While these facts may not be admissible in a court of law, the social implications of this decision are equally important. Is it now society’s wish to give youth and inexperience a premium over the maturity, perspective and mastery of skills that come with living longer? Have we reached the point where our regard for old age is reduced to a cost-benefit analysis that equates age and experience with only dollars and cents?

In a California economy that is finally showing unmistakable signs of emerging from the sloughs of recession, this court’s action--or inaction, in declining to review a lower court ruling--will only fuel more anxiety and economic insecurity among older workers already battered by mergers and downsizing. Worse, this ruling will inevitably lead to a greater disrespect for age and maturity. And that, despite all the economic arguments one can muster, is something we cannot afford.