Age discrimination has been a controversial and divisive issue in America’s workplaces for many years. In 1967, Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in order to provide guidance to employers and employees. According to Essex, ADEA “effectively prohibited forced retirement of employees by protecting people above age forty from discrimination on the basis of age with respect to hiring, dismissal, and other terms and conditions of employment” (Essex, 2016, p. 237). In the case study, Beth Stuart is a veteran teacher that believed she had been hired for a teaching job as a last minute replacement for a departing teacher. Stuart went so far as to begin decorating a classroom that she believed to be hers. Ultimately, the superintendent continued to interview candidates and selected a teacher for the job that was thirty years younger. This case study brings forth many questions related to the rights of Stuart and of the school system. …show more content…
While she was confident that she would be hired as a teacher, there was no formal agreement in place. Moreover, there had been no school board approval and no official contract signed. Furthermore, the principal used poor judgement in allowing Stuart to decorate her room. Unwittingly, the principal reinforced the idea that Stuart had been officially hired and created unnecessary complications for the superintendent. Stuart has legal recourse in the event that she can put forth evidence of age discrimination that implicates the superintendent or school system. Essex states, “The evidence is quite clear that the burden of proof rests with plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination” (Essex, 2016, p. 238). Essentially, Stuart must provide factual proof that her age played a role in the decision to hire a younger teacher. If she is able to furnish this information, she will have a strong