The statement In the picture discussed where an employee filed a lawsuit for wrongful termination.

What is your comment on the discussion?

According to the US department of labor (Age discrimination). The federal law probibiting age discrimination in employment was enacted in 1967 and is enforeed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Diserimination against senior workers continues to plague the workforce. Wrongful termination takes on many forms that employees need to be aware of in order to protect themselves against wrongful termination. Organizations may tell employees that they are cutting back payroll or that their performance was not up to par. But the hidden agenda behind what appears to be an authentic termination could be discrimination. In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court by the EEOC (Srategic Legal Solations to pay $85,000 to sertle Eeoc Age Discrimination Lawsait) against New York Strategic Legal Solutions, on behalf of a seventy-year-old attomey for withdrawing a job offer after discovering her age, and retaliated against her for questioning whether the termination was related to the diseovery of her age, by threatening to pat her on a do not hire list. The case was not brought before a jury but was settled by a consent decree in which Strategic Solutions agreed to pay $85.000 to the victim and implement measures to prevent future age discrimination and retaliation. These measures include the implementation of anti-discrimination policies and prevision of training to all employees, posting a notice about the case annually for three years, and provision of free training to all attorneys aged 60 and above on how to conduct document reviews using eDiscovery software and technologies. The case of the 70-year-old attorney is a bona fide event of wrongful termination based on ageism. The victim interviewed and was offered a position, but apparently, after reviewing her application which would most likely contain her date of birth, the offer was rescinded. There was no other plausible explanation for withdrawing the offer osher than ageism - a direct violation of EEOC. It is my expressed opinion that the lawsait was warranted and I applaud the attomey for recognizing that she was a victim of wrongful termination and for taking steps to remedy the situation. Thankfully she knew the regulations regarding wrongful termination and sought legal assistance to support her in the litigation against Strategic Solutions. This case could have been avoided in two ways, Strategic Solutions should have reviewed all aspects of the employee's documents before offering ber the position. If this had been done and ageism was an issuc, they could have rejected the application citing there were many more qualified applicants for the position. Although ageism was their motive, it would be difficult to prove in a court of law, and they would have gotten away with it without arousing much attention. Another is to allow the cmployee to work, monitor her closely, and document pertinent findings to determine whether her age is affecting ber job nerformance. Damaging findings could be used against her, as a legitimate reason for termination. However, rescinding the job offer, and when the victim asks whether the decision was age-related, and in response, being told she would be placed on a do not hire list, was not the most intelligent response to provide to a lawyer