Category Archives: Age Discrimination

The blog just read this article on Yahoo.com authored Smart Money magazine. The article talks about the difficulties victims of age discrimination in the workplace face. The article quotes a management lawyer as follows:
“Most plantiffs’ lawyers will take these cases on a contingency fee (usually about 40% of any money rewarded to you), which means in the best case scenario, you win the case and owe your lawyer hundreds of thousands of dollars, says Ron Chapman, an employment lawyer with Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart. “That’s a big chunk of money, and it should cause prospective plaintiffs to consider whether going through a lawsuit is worth it,” Chapman says.”
Actually that is 100% wrong, and Mr. Chapman knows he’s wrong. If you win a case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or the state equivalent, the employer (i.e., Mr. Chapman’s client) pays 100% of your attorneys’ fees and costs. Normally your attorney takes none of your award because that amount awarded by the court is greater than your contingency fee. Employment and civil rights laws are private attorney general statutes — they serve a public good. Accordingly, the losing defendant or employer has to compensate you for your damage, but must also pay your attorney his fees as well.
The article gets one thing right – employment cases are tough. Outright wins are rare; normally a reasonable settlement is reached before trial. Employment cases are also challenging because they are disfavored lawsuits in the eyes of the judiciary. This is why it is important to hire an experienced age discrimination attorney as soon as possible.
The article also has four suggestions before hiring a lawyer. Get a reality check; Talk to your boss; Go to human resources; and File a claim.
This too is nonsense. The blog has two suggestions to help you prevail or at least to help you get the right advice early on. First, do not quit your job. The strength of your case and the settlement value of your case is significantly higher if you contact an attorney while you are still employed. (Just remember to use private email, not work email). Second, contact a lawyer immediately. Going to human resources is great, but going to human resources with your lawyer is even better! You could file an EEOC claim on your own, but who is going to help you with the narrative and with the law? The EEOC is not your advocate and not your lawyer. They ask you basic questions, you sign a piece of paper, and statistically speaking you will never hear from them again.
The blog is disappointed at how one-sided and incorrect this Smart Money article is.

Ten years ago mandatory retirement at a certain age was standard. These company policies existed notwithstanding the fact that they are almost always illegal and violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. A recent lawsuit against Asian World of Martial Arts confirms this and emphasizes the danger companies face whether they overtly or implicitly have such a policy.
Asian World of Martial Arts, Inc., a leading mail and retail distributor of martial arts supplies, violated federal law when it discriminated against an employee and fired him because of his age, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.
According to EEOC’s suit (Civil Action No 10-5062, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) Asian World of Martial Arts, Inc. fired Morris Pashko because of his age, 74. Unbeknownst to Pashko, the company president, Georgette Ciukurescu, implemented a mandatory retirement policy forcing all employees over age 67 to be terminated. Pashko, the company’s controller, who had been employed by the company over 20 years, had an exemplary record. He was informed of his termination on November 14, 2007, while he was on leave and recuperating in the hospital from surgery. Despite his pleas to be given additional time, Ciukurescu told Pashko that he should obtain health insurance by December 1, 2007, the effective date of his termination. The EEOC alleges that in addition to Pashko, Asian World also fired two staff employees under the auspices of its newly created, unlawful mandatory retirement policy.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. That protection includes, with narrow exceptions not applicable here, prohibiting mandatory retirement based on age. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. The complaint seeks monetary and injunctive relief, including back wages, liquidated damages and changes in employment policies to eliminate future age-based discrimination, training and policy revisions eliminating the mandatory retirement policy.
“The ADEA does not permit employers to impose mandatory retirement on older employees except in certain situations not relevant to this case, still less to fire them in furtherance of such a policy,” said EEOC Philadelphia Regional Attorney Debra S. Lawrence. “Mr. Pashko had been effectively performing his job for over 20 years. Nevertheless, this company succumbed to age-related myths, fears and stereotypes which resulted in his unlawful termination.”
Sarelson Law Firm has experience representing older works who face age discrimination, and it served as lead counsel in the Eleventh Circuit’s landmark Mora v. Jackson Memorial Foundation case.