Legal paper

MARYMOUNT COLLEGE SUED FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION

FACT: Marymount Manhattan College (MMC), a school where they teach dance, had an open position for a dance teacher. An advertisement was posted to hire a qualified applicant to train the students in dance. Several applicants applied for the job, including a 64 year-old choreographer, Patricia Catterson. Catterson was the most qualified candidate for the position. However, when MMC realized that Catterson was the leading candidate, things took a different turn. The school decided to extend its search, and they included a less qualified person. The school selected the 37 year-old applicant over the 64 year-old applicant, causing Catterson to lose the job. MMC felt that the 34 year-old was the right person for the job due to her age. The loss of Catterson’s job opportunity triggered the age Discrimination Act. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a suit with the US District Court of New York under civil action no. 12-CV- 2388 (JPO). It is important to note that US District Court of New York had previously attempted a conciliation process through the pre-litigation settlement. District judge Paul Oetken was assigned the case.

It is a fact that the 64 year-old, though she was experienced and deserved the position, was denied the opportunity because of her age. The position was given to a younger person whom the school felt was deserving. Under the law, it is prohibited to discriminate against another person based on their age. Workers should be evaluated by their abilities and not based on their age. Age should not be a major factor when it comes to hiring a qualified applicant. According to the case, the deciding factor was age.

ISSUE: Was the decision by the school to hire the 37 year-old lady instead of the 64 year-old woman legal? Was the lady fit for the job, and could her age prevent her from taking care of her responsibilities as per the job description?

CONCLUSION: NO. The decision by the school to hire the 37 year-old woman in place of the 64 year-old qualified candidate was illegal. The law provides that any person that has the ability to carry out their duties qualifies for the position for which they applied. Age discrimination should not take place anywhere as long as the candidate is qualified and can effectively carry out his or her duties; then it is up to the employer to hire him or her.

ANALYSIS AND REASONING: According to the age discrimination and employment act, all job applicants aged forty and above should not be discriminated against (Beatty, 2008). Everybody should undergo the right procedure when they are applying for jobs, and the right candidate should be offered the job without favoritism. According to the regional attorney of EEOC’s office of New York, older workers or older people applying for jobs should not be discriminated against and should be evaluated by looking at their abilities, and not necessarily based on their age. Therefore, what should come first is whether they have the capability to handle the task as required by the employer and whether they can meet the expectations of the people who are served by the person. No place in the application has age specifications, so it is up to the hiring firm to ensure that people who apply meet the other necessary qualifications and at the same time be in a position to execute the duties as required by the institution. In this case of the Marymount School, the 64 year-old candidate was qualified for the job. It is evidence because after the school conducted the interview, Catterson was among the top there candidates. After the second interview, she also emerged the best over the three candidates who were shortlisted. Therefore, it is not true that she did not meet the qualification requirement. Another issue is that the school swapped Catterson with one of the other applicants who were younger, meaning that they disqualified the candidate who was fit for the position based on her age. It shows that it was an unfair issue because she was qualified in every way to teach the class and was not chosen because of a factor that wasn't important for the class.

The school did not have any other valid reason as to why they did not hire Catterson even after she qualified for the position. They did all they could to make Catterson believe that she was just not qualified enough of the job. When questioned, the school denied making a decision based on the woman’s age, but rather claimed she was denied for other personal traits. Worse is that even after proving that she could tasks as expected, they did not give her the opportunity to prove it by working. The institution went ahead and hired an unqualified woman who to them was fit because she was young and could be in a position to handle things better and be committed more than the older woman.

Therefore, Catterson was a qualified candidate and had skills that had overtaken the rest of the candidates. Obviously, the school took things against the law and the school has a case to answer. Justice should be offered to the old lady because `she was denied was she deserved.

The institution could have hired the person in question because after all, she was qualified for the position. Secondly, judgment passed on age was unfair because she was more deserving than any other candidate to take the position. moreover, they could have given her the opportunity to serve at the institution as a choreographer and if her age limited her in her performance, then the institution could have terminated her contract based on the fact that she did not she did not perform and not on presumed decisions.

Barnes, P. (2012). EEOC Tackles Ageism in Academia. Retrieved from http://abusergoestowork.com/tag/marymount-college/

Beatty, J. F., Samuelson, S. S., & Bredeson, D. A. (2014). Legal Environment (5th ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western.

Marymount Manhattan College Settles EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit. (2011). Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-4-13b.cfm