age discrimination

Claimant A, a salesperson at a department store, alleged that her supervisor discriminated against her for being a woman of menopausal age.  The claimant had worked in retail for 37 years and had received multiple awards for being a top performer.  While she initially got along with her supervisor, in May 2017, when the claimant was going through menopause, her supervisor’s attitude towards her changed.  Her supervisor would frequently harass and humiliate her in front of her colleagues and customers, specifically commenting about her menopause.

Here, the employment judge found that the claimant was entitled to lost wages for the period between her resignation in December 2018 and the start of her new position in September 2019 on the grounds that the claimant “suffered a substantial reduction in her mental wellbeing” as a result of improper treatment and discrimination from her employer in relation to the claimant’s onset of menopause and was thereby entitled to damages emanating from injury to feelings. The claimant alleged that her store manager discriminated against her for being a woman of menopausal age.

In Adams v. CDM Media, USA, Inc., a 59-year-old woman sued a media company after being rejected for an inside sales position, alleging age discrimination in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 378-2. The employer argued that the decision not to hire her was based on a lack of recent and relevant sales experience, not age.

The plaintiff was a 59 year-old male employee who was fired following his failure to disclose documents that he received from a customer. He filed suit in the Shelby County Circuit Court alleging both age and sex discrimination in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act. He asserted that a female employee in a similar situation was treated more favorably and that the firing was a pretext for replacing him with a younger female employee.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 51, Chapter 38, § 51:2231 et seq. prohibits age discrimination and breastfeeding discrimination in public accommodations, and authorizes administrative enforcement to the Louisiana Commission on Human Rights. Additionally, this section authorizes parishes and municipalities to create their own local human rights commissions.

Resolution No. 17721-2016-0094 (2017)

S.A. was dismissed by the General Inspectorate because she was reaching the standard age for retirement, although she chose to continue working. The court of first instance held that the decision of the employer was illegal given that the company decided to terminate S.A.’s employment contract solely because she had exceeded the standard age for retiring in the case of women (58 years), while a man born on the same year could work until the age of 64.

The applicant was a low-income single mother whose request for housing assistance was refused because she was above the age threshold to qualify as a “young family.” The Court unanimously ruled that the limit of 35 years old for eligibility to receive housing subsidy did not violate Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which provides protection against discrimination, due to objective data showing that such age limitation was a proportional measure.