# data[].attributes.body
Non-Discrimination Ordinances are typically enacted at the local level by city councils or county commissions. They are local laws that aim to protect individuals from discrimination in various areas of public life within that particular jurisdiction.

Prohibits Discrimination: NDOs generally prohibit discrimination based on specific protected characteristics, such as race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, marital status, or veteran status.

Covered Areas: NDOs may cover multiple areas, including employment, housing, public accommodations, education, and access to city services or contracts.

Enforcement Agency: The ordinances usually establish a local commission or agency responsible for handling complaints, investigating alleged discrimination, and enforcing the ordinance.

Complaint Process: NDOs outline the process for individuals to file discrimination complaints, including time limits, documentation requirements, and the steps involved in the investigation.

Remedies and Penalties: NDOs may provide remedies for victims of discrimination, such as reinstatement, damages, or injunctive relief. They may also include penalties or fines for violators of the ordinance.

Posting Requirements: Some NDOs require businesses and entities covered by the ordinance to display notices informing the public of their non-discrimination policy.

(San Antonio, 2000-2023)

Antonio, C. o. (2000-2023, July 9). NON-DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE (NDO). Retrieved from City of San Antonio: https://www.sanantonio.gov/Equity/Discrimination-Complaints

# data[].attributes.headline
United States Supreme Court- GROSS v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (2009)

# data[].attributes.subject
United States Supreme Court- GROSS v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (2009)

# data[].attributes.body
GROSS v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (2009) is a landmark case.

The case involved the interpretation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

The central issue was whether the burden of proof for an ADEA claim involving age discrimination in the workplace requires the employee to prove that age was the "but-for" cause of the adverse employment action.

The Court held that plaintiffs bringing ADEA claims must demonstrate that age was the "but-for" cause of the employer's adverse action, meaning that the adverse action would not have occurred "but for" the employee's age.

This decision raised the standard of proof for age discrimination claims, making it more challenging for plaintiffs to prevail in such cases.

The Court's ruling clarified that mixed-motive analysis, where age is one of several motivating factors for the adverse action, is not applicable to ADEA claims.

The decision impacted the burden of proof and the elements required to establish an ADEA claim, affecting how age discrimination cases are litigated.

GROSS v. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., 557 U.S. 167 (2009)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-441.ZS.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 .

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GROSS v. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit

Petitioner Gross filed suit, alleging that respondent (FBL) demoted him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which makes it unlawful for an employer to take adverse action against an employee "because of such individual's age," 29 U. S. C. §623(a). At the close of trial, and over FBL's objections, the District Court instructed the jury to enter a verdict for Gross if he proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was demoted and his age was a motivating factor in the demotion decision, and told the jury that age was a motivating factor if it played a part in the demotion. It also instructed the jury to return a verdict for FBL if it proved that it would have demoted Gross regardless of age. The jury returned a verdict for Gross. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the jury had been incorrectly instructed under the standard established in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228 , for cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when an employee alleges that he suffered an adverse employment action because of both permissible and impermissible considerations- i.e., a "mixed-motives" case.

Held: A plaintiff bringing an ADEA disparate-treatment claim must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the "but-for" cause of the challenged adverse employment action. The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision. Pp. 4-12.

(a) Because Title VII is materially different with respect to the relevant burden of persuasion, this Court's interpretation of the ADEA is not governed by Title VII decisions such as Price Waterhouse and Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U. S. 90 . This Court has never applied Title VII's burden-shifting framework to ADEA claims and declines to do so now. When conducting statutory interpretation, the Court "must be careful not to apply rules applicable under one statute to a different statute without careful and critical examination." Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U. S. ___, ___. Unlike Title VII, which has been amended to explicitly authorize discrimination claims where an improper consideration was "a motivating factor" for the adverse action, see 42 U. S. C. §§2000e-2(m) and 2000e-5(g)(2)(B), the ADEA does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor. Moreover, Congress neglected to add such a provision to the ADEA when it added §§2000e-2(m) and 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) to Title VII, even though it contemporaneously amended the ADEA in several ways. When Congress amends one statutory provision but not another, it is presumed to have acted intentionally, see EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U. S. 244 , and "negative implications raised by disparate provisions are strongest" where the provisions were "considered simultaneously when the language raising the implication was inserted," Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 . Pp. 5-6.

(b) The ADEA's text does not authorize an alleged mixed-motives age discrimination claim. The ordinary meaning of the ADEA's requirement that an employer took adverse action "because of" age is that age was the "reason" that the employer decided to act. See Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U. S. 604 . To establish a disparate-treatment claim under this plain language, a plaintiff must prove that age was the "but-for" cause of the employer's adverse decision. See Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U. S. ___, ___. It follows that under §623(a)(1), the plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion to establish that "but-for" cause. This Court has previously held this to be the burden's proper allocation in ADEA cases, see, e.g., Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, 554 U. S. ___, ___-___, ___-___, and nothing in the statute's text indicates that Congress has carved out an exception for a subset of ADEA cases. Where a statute is "silent on the allocation of the burden of persuasion," "the ordinary default rule [is] that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims." Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U. S. 49 . Hence, the burden of persuasion is the same in alleged mixed-motives cases as in any other ADEA disparate-treatment action. Pp. 7-9.

(c) This Court rejects petitioner's contention that the proper interpretation of the ADEA is nonetheless controlled by Price Waterhouse, which initially established that the burden of persuasion shifted in alleged mixed-motives Title VII claims. It is far from clear that the Court would have the same approach were it to consider the question today in the first instance. Whatever Price Waterhouse's deficiencies in retrospect, it has become evident in the years since that case was decidedthat its burden-shifting framework is difficult to apply. The problems associated with its application have eliminated any perceivable benefit to extending its framework to ADEA claims. Cf. Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U. S. 36 . Pp. 10-11.

526 F. 3d 356, vacated and remanded.

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

# data[].attributes.headline
Federal Law- The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

# data[].attributes.subject
Federal Law- The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

# data[].attributes.body
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is a federal law enacted by the United States Congress in 1967.

The ADEA prohibits age discrimination against employees and job applicants who are 40 years of age or older.

The ADEA prohibits age-based discrimination in all aspects of employment, including hiring, firing, promotions, layoffs, compensation, benefits, and terms or conditions of employment.

It applies to employers with 20 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments, labor organizations, and employment agencies.

The ADEA protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from age-based discrimination. It does not protect younger workers.

The law makes it unlawful to use age as a determining factor in employment decisions, even if the employer's intention is benevolent or well-meaning.

Harassment based on age that creates a hostile work environment is considered a violation of the ADEA.

Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees for asserting their rights under the ADEA or participating in related proceedings.

The ADEA allows for "reasonable factors other than age" (RFOA) as a defense for certain employment decisions that may have a disparate impact on older workers.

29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is the text of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (Pub. L. 90-202) (ADEA), as amended, as it appears in volume 29 of the United States Code, beginning at section 621. The ADEA prohibits employment discrimination against persons 40 years of age or older.

# data[].attributes.headline
Federal Law- Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964

# data[].attributes.subject
Federal Law- Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964

# data[].attributes.body
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment based on certain protected characteristics.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

It applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments.

The law covers various aspects of employment, including hiring, firing, promotions, compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment.

Title VII prohibits both intentional discrimination and practices that have a disparate impact on protected groups.

The law also protects employees from retaliation if they oppose discriminatory practices or participate in related investigations or proceedings.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc.gov)

# data[].attributes.headline
Texas Legislature- Texas Labor Code Chapter 21

# data[].attributes.subject
Texas Legislature- Texas Labor Code Chapter 21

# data[].attributes.body
The Texas Labor Code is a collection of statutes enacted and amended by the Texas Legislature, which is the legislative branch of the state government responsible for creating and passing laws.

Texas Labor Code Chapter 21 is titled "Employment Discrimination."

The chapter prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on race, color, disability, national origin, age, sex, and religion.

It applies to employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations with 15 or more employees.

Discrimination in hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, and other employment-related decisions is prohibited.

Texas Labor Code § 21.001 et seq.

LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (texas.gov)

# data[].attributes.body
As a training and development coach, my professional perspective revolves around fostering a culture of learning and growth within individuals and organizations. I firmly believe that investing in people's development is essential for achieving sustainable success and fostering a thriving work environment. I am passionate about empowering individuals to discover their potential, enhance their skills, and achieve their personal and professional goals.

My coaching approach is rooted in empathy, active listening, and open communication. I aim to create a safe and supportive space where individuals feel encouraged to explore their strengths and areas for improvement. I utilize various coaching methodologies, such as goal setting, feedback-driven development, and reflective practices, to help my clients unlock their full potential and drive meaningful change.  My educational background has provided me with a deep understanding of human behavior in organizational settings, adult learning principles, talent development strategies, and effective coaching techniques. The audience I focus on for discrimination of age in training and development coaching comprises both employers and employees within organizations. Age discrimination can manifest in various forms, such as biased hiring practices, limited opportunities for career advancement based on age, and stereotyping older or younger employees. It is essential to address these issues proactively and create an inclusive workplace where individuals of all ages can thrive and contribute their unique perspectives and experiences.
I chose to focus on discrimination of age in training and development coaching because it is a pervasive issue that can have significant consequences for individuals and organizations alike. Age diversity in the workforce can bring a wealth of experience, creativity, and knowledge, positively impacting innovation and problem-solving. However, age-related biases and prejudices can hinder the full utilization of this diverse talent pool. By addressing age discrimination in the context of training and development coaching, I aim to raise awareness about its impact on individuals' professional growth and organizational success. Through coaching, I seek to help organizations create equitable learning and development opportunities for employees of all ages, fostering a culture of inclusivity and embracing the value that each individual brings to the table.

# data[].attributes.body
In light of evolving regulations and industry standards, the following recommendations for compliance have been carefully crafted to ensure that we meet all legal requirements and maintain the highest ethical standards.

Educate employees: Provide comprehensive training to all employees on age discrimination laws, policies, and best practices to raise awareness and promote a discrimination-free work environment.

Create a clear anti-discrimination policy: Develop and communicate a strong, written policy explicitly prohibiting age discrimination and outlining consequences for violations.

Foster an inclusive culture: Encourage a culture of respect and inclusion where employees of all ages are valued for their contributions and perspectives.

Implement fair hiring practices: Ensure that the recruitment and selection process is fair and objective, focusing on skills and qualifications rather than age-related factors.

Regularly review policies and practices: Periodically assess HR policies and practices to identify and rectify any potential age-related biases or discriminatory practices.

Establish complaint procedures: Set up confidential and accessible channels for employees to report age discrimination complaints, and ensure that all complaints are promptly and thoroughly investigated.

Encourage multigenerational collaboration: Promote intergenerational teamwork and mentorship programs to foster cooperation and knowledge-sharing among employees of different age groups.

Consider flexible work arrangements: Provide flexible work options, such as telecommuting or flexible hours, to accommodate the needs of employees at various life stages.

Conduct diversity and sensitivity training: Incorporate diversity and sensitivity training into coaching and professional development programs to promote understanding and empathy towards different age groups.

Seek legal counsel: Consult legal experts or counsel to ensure compliance with age discrimination laws and regulations and to address any legal questions or concerns related to age-related matters in the educational setting.

# data[].attributes.body
Title: "Ageism at Work: The Role of Stereotypes in Managing the Older Worker" (Book)

Author: Ruth Kanfer, Phillip L. Ackerman

"Ageism at Work" is a comprehensive book that explores the topic of age discrimination in the workplace from a psychological perspective. It examines how stereotypes and biases impact the way older workers are managed and perceived in various professional settings. The book presents research and insights from psychological studies, shedding light on the complex dynamics of age discrimination and providing practical implications for training and development coaching to address age-related biases in the workplace. It equips coaches with a deeper understanding of the psychological factors contributing to age discrimination and offers strategies to promote inclusivity, diversity, and fair treatment of older workers in organizations.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (Eds.). (2004). Ageism at Work: The Role of Stereotypes in Managing the Older Worker. American Psychological Association.

The book is available on the American Psychological Association website: https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4317163

# data[].attributes.body
International Coach Federation (ICF) Code of Ethics

ICF Core Competency #2 - Establishing the Coaching Agreement
International Coach Federation (ICF) Code of Ethics, Core Competency #2.
https://coachfederation.org/code-of-ethics

While the ICF Code of Ethics does not explicitly mention age discrimination, Core Competency #2 - Establishing the Coaching Agreement - focuses on setting the foundation for a coaching relationship based on mutual respect and trust. This competency requires coaches to establish a clear and open agreement with their clients, including discussing potential areas of sensitivity or concern. Age-related concerns or ethical dilemmas related to age discrimination could arise in this context, prompting coaches to address them openly and ensure that the coaching relationship is free from any form of bias or discrimination. By addressing these concerns upfront, coaches can foster an ethical coaching environment that respects the dignity and rights of all clients, regardless of their age.

# data[].attributes.body
BBC News

Ageism: Older women face heavy workplace discrimination - charity

Women over 50 in Wales face multiple forms of discrimination in the workplace according to a women's charity.

The gender pay gap also was found to impact women as they got older, translating to a pension pay gap which created "economic hardship for women".

The report found women faced issues such as a "pension pay gap" and a lack of understanding of menopause symptoms.

It is important that employers not only "think about what policies that should be introduced in the workplace" but show they "support women of all ages". (Clements, 2023)

Clements, L. (2023, May 16). Ageism: Older women face heavy workplace discrimination - charity. Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-65607767

# data[].attributes.body
The Washington Post
Article:  For Black workers, age discrimination strikes twice

Age discrimination sounds simple: The oldest workers face the strongest biases.

Black workers are typically less likely to be hired than White workers with the same experience, but the gap closes in middle age.

Hiring managers tend to accept white applicants at face value while subconsciously scrutinizing Black ones.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics supports this observation, to a point. It shows the employment gap between White and Black workers narrows in middle age, especially for women, but it rarely closes entirely.(Dam, 2021)

Dam, A. V. (2021, May 14). For Black workers, age discrimination strikes twice. Retrieved from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/05/14/age-discrimination-black-workers/

# data[].attributes.body
More than 60 percent of workers aged 45 and older report having experienced or witnessed age-related discrimination in the workplace. Despite laws in place protecting workers from such discrimination, many can expect to face career difficulties past age 50. In fact, since 2013, IBM has forced some 20,000 workers aged 40 and older out of the workforce in an effort to “correct seniority mix.” (Kimberl, 2019)
Age discrimination in the workplace remains a significant concern for individuals aged 45 and above. To address this issue, President Lyndon B. Johnson took a crucial step in 1967 by signing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) into law. This pivotal legislation offers protection to U.S. workers who are 40 years old or older, safeguarding them from discriminatory practices in hiring, firing, wages, and various other employment aspects.
One effective way to demonstrate your commitment to growth and adaptability is by actively engaging in training and other developmental activities, showcasing your willingness to learn new skills and knowledge to excel in your role.  Reassuringly, older workers are not simply enduring age discrimination. Instead, many are asserting themselves by pursuing entrepreneurship and establishing their own businesses. Furthermore, they are discovering that their wealth of work experience serves as a strong foundation, equipping them to emerge as capable and dynamic business leaders.

Kimberl, M. (2019, April 04). Rise of the Greypreneur. Retrieved from Atd Association for Talent Development: https://www.td.org/insights/rise-of-the-greypreneur

# data[].attributes.body
Discrimination of age, commonly referred to as ageism, is the unfair treatment or prejudice against individuals based on their age. This discrimination can be directed towards both younger and older individuals. Ageism is a significant issue that impacts various aspects of society, including the workplace and personal relationships. It is essential to address age discrimination due to its adverse effects on individuals and society as a whole.
Importance of Addressing Age Discrimination:

Diversity and Inclusion: Age diversity in the workforce and training environments is crucial for fostering creativity, innovation, and different perspectives.

Talent Utilization: Discriminating against older workers deprives organizations of experienced talent and valuable institutional knowledge.

Health and Well-being: Age discrimination can negatively impact mental and emotional well-being, leading to stress and a decline in overall health for affected individuals.

Productivity and Efficiency: A workforce free from age discrimination is more likely to work cohesively, leading to increased productivity and better teamwork.

Age discrimination has a notable impact on training and development coaching:

Training Access: Older employees might face barriers in accessing training opportunities, limiting their ability to update their skills and knowledge.

Coaching Approach: Coaches may need to adapt their approaches to accommodate the diverse learning styles and preferences of individuals of different age groups.

Skill Transfer: Ageism can hinder the smooth transfer of knowledge and skills from older to younger generations within an organization.

An emerging issue related to age discrimination that we should closely monitor is "Technological Ageism." With the rapid advancement of technology and its integration into various industries, some individuals, especially older workers, might face discrimination based on their perceived inability to adapt to new technologies.  Technological ageism could lead to older employees being sidelined or excluded from important roles and projects, even if they possess valuable experience and expertise in other areas.  Coaches may need to focus on bridging the technological skills gap between different age groups. This could involve tailored training programs to help older employees stay up to date with technology, as well as encouraging intergenerational collaboration to facilitate knowledge exchange.