Proving age discrimination can be quite difficult to prove however, in this case the plaintiff has much evidence that her supervisor intentionally discriminated against her on the basis of disparate treatment. I can conclude that Ms. Baker has presented a case of age discrimination for determination by a jury. Most significant are the statement from her supervisors, who participated in the decision to terminate Ms. Baker, indicating that they desired a preference for the employment of younger workers over people in the class protected by the ADEA.
Ms. Baker’s supervisor also openly and verbally stated that Silver Oak was 'missing the boat by not hiring more younger and vibrant people, and that employees 'should start looking over applications
…show more content…
In general, when employers have legitimate reasons for taking actions against workers, the law requires plaintiffs to show that illegal reasons were the actual causes of the employer’s decision. This leads to the possibility that an employer could have relied on prohibited factors, under Title VII—race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, but also had at least some good reason for the adverse decision (e.g., poor job performance or trouble-making conduct). (Wiener & Famum, …show more content…
First, employers can be responsible for willfully discriminating against an employee (or an applicant for employment) on the basis of the employee‘s membership in a protected group (disparate treatment). The most common form of employment discrimination is intentional discrimination or disparate treatment. Intentional discrimination is not always easy to prove because, in most circumstances, employers will not openly discriminate and plaintiffs will not have direct evidence of the employer‘s intent to discriminate (Lidge III, 2011). All the more, Ms. Baker’s supervisor made many vulgar and harsh remarks in regards to her ager which is considered as one of the protected class characteristics that constitutes unlawful