|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
| SEARCH | SUBSCRIBE | ||
Some related articles : |
 |
Workers over 40 aren't entitled to equal job benefits
In a blow to
California workers over 40, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday that
employers are free to discriminate against older workers in awarding
college tuition and other on-the-job benefits. The unanimous
ruling could have sweeping ramifications for the aging Baby Boomer
population in California, where 45 percent of workers are over 40. Employment
lawyers say the decision could extend beyond tuition payments to include a
variety of traditional benefits, including working hours, vacation pay,
sick leave and stock options. In a
relatively short 13-page opinion, the court said the law clearly states
that employers do not have to consider age when awarding benefits to
employees. "The
Legislature has prohibited employers from discriminating on the basis of
age when they make decisions about hiring, discharging, suspension, and
demoting," wrote Justice Joyce Kennard in the court's opinion. However, she
said, the law "does not prohibit discrimination in the terms,
conditions or privileges of employment." The ruling is
a defeat for Dan Esberg, a former telecommunications specialist at Union
Oil Co. who sued after the company in 1994 refused to pay the costs of his
master's degree program while subsidizing three younger employees. "You're
too old to invest in," his supervisor told him, according to the
court opinion. Esberg was 56 at the time. Esberg, who
lives in Corona in Riverside County, eventually left the company. He was doing
field work in Indiana on Monday when he learned of the court's ruling.
"Personally, it's disappointing," said the 64-year-old
telecommunications specialist. The justices, he said, "just opened
the door to all kinds of abuse." The justices
upheld a state appeals court decision in February 2001 in favor of the
employer, by then called Unocal. By a 3-0 vote, the Santa Ana panel said
the statute allows employers to discriminate against older employees in
awarding privileges and benefits. LEGISLATIVE REMEDY POSSIBLE The only
recourse left for employees is in the Legislature. A bill is pending that
would give older workers the same protection as other employees when it
comes to job privileges and benefits. The bill,
introduced last year by Assemblywoman Gloria Negrete McLeod, D- Chino, in
response to the appellate court ruling, has cleared the Assembly and was
passed last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Supporters of
the bill include state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the California
Commission on Aging, the American Association of Retired Persons and the
Gray Panthers. The California Chamber of Commerce and other business and
employment groups oppose the bill. If Monday's
ruling is left intact, "employers could use this decision as a device
to get rid of older employees," said William Quackenbush, a San Mateo
employment law specialist who helped Esberg in his appeal. "Employers
are free under state law to discriminate," said Esberg's attorney,
Dale Fiola of Anaheim. Employees can
still rely on federal law, which protects older workers from being
discriminated against when it comes to on-the-job benefits and privileges.
But Fiola noted that it is not easy for employees to win in federal court,
which requires unanimous verdicts and imposes strict limits on the amount
of damages an employee can collect. State law
requires only a 9-3 vote for a verdict and sets no limits on damages. Barry Lane, a
spokesman for Unocal, said the oil company, based in El Segundo, did not
discriminate against Esberg but did have issues with his job performance.
"We have a basic nondiscrimination policy across the board on all
issues," he said. Monday's
decision dealt with an obscure twist in California law. AGE IS A LOOPHOLE The state's
anti-discrimination law protects people from being unfairly treated based
on their race, religion, national origin, mental disability and marital
status. The law
covers virtually every category, except age. Workers over
40 are covered under a separate statute, which protects workers from
firings, suspensions and demotions. But unlike the general law, it doesn't
mention benefits and privileges. Nonetheless,
employment lawyers assumed that older workers had the same protections as
other groups. That changed
after Esberg sued Union Oil. In 1991, the company, which had urged all
employees to get a college diploma, paid the $16,000 tuition for Esberg's
undergraduate degree. Three years later, while he was finishing up his
work at the University of Redlands, Esberg applied for financial aid to
pursue a master's degree at the same college. His bosses
turned him down but agreed to subsidize three of his younger colleagues. Unocal
officials said they turned Esberg down because he had been placed on
probation for arriving late to work, sleeping on the job and doing
personal business on company time. Esberg said
that he had received positive job reviews as well as several promotions
and that the probation issue was a ruse to deny his request. An Orange
County jury agreed with Esberg, finding that Unocal had wrongfully denied
Esberg tuition payments because of his age, and awarded him $86,000. The
judge reduced the award to $51,000, ruling that Unocal hadn't violated any
public policy, wiping out the $35,000 in damages awarded for emotional
distress. Esberg's
attorneys argued that despite the omission in the age discrimination law,
California public policy forbids discriminating against older employees
when it comes to privileges and benefits. LAWYERS SHOCKED But in a
ruling that stunned employment lawyers, the state appeals court ruled that
California law allows employers to deny benefits to older employees. In Monday's
ruling, the state Supreme Court agreed that Esberg was entitled to only
the $51,000 in economic damages from Unocal for breaching an agreement
with him. "In no uncertain terms, the Legislature has prohibited employers from discriminating in the terms and conditions of employment on the basis of a variety of factors," Kennard said, "but the employee's age notably is not one of those factors." FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Action on Aging distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
