Zimpfer Case

19 September 2014

BMGT360 Sec 101

Exercise 3.1: Zimpfer v. Palm Beach County

Q1. According to the job vacancy description, the analysis conducted by Marcy Miller Josephs, PH.D., and the key points of the ADEA, I don’t feel I have enough information to draw a conclusion. There are points that I can raise for either side.

For the side of Yes, Mr. Zimpfer was a victim of age discrimination; I can understand that conclusion because both he and Bender, (40 years old) had the highest scores on the analysis (Zimpfer having the highest at 20) and neither one of them was offered the position. It would seem that this would be a cut clear case, but when reviewing the “minimum entrance” requirements, these men could be considered over qualified.

For the side of No, Mr. Zimpfer was not a victim of age discrimination; I can understand that conclusion as well. Below are some of the highlighted points of concern of ADEA.

Areas of Concern

- Pension benefits of older workers being cut

- Jobs having fitness requirements that are not relevant to the position

- Offering different health benefits that younger employees

- Changing job requirements in order to convince older workers to quit and make room for younger employees

- Layoffs effecting senior workers (when its disproportionate its considered discriminatory.)

When looking at the main points of ADEA, I’d need to see more proof that these types of situations occurred prior to and after the job vacancy ad. Also in the case Mastie v Great Lakes Steel Corp, it was determined that, “the controlling issue should be whether age was a determinative factor in the personal decision, not the absolute accuracy or correctness of the personal decision.” Evidence would need to be provided to show that Mr. Zimpfer’s age was in fact that determinative factor.

Q4. It would be of use to Palm Beach County to look into adopting age discrimination prevention policies to avert future law suits. Honestly, the laws have been...