5/22/2009

Earlier this month, a statewide class-action lawsuit was filed in a Northern California federal court, alleging that Minnesota-based giant 3M systematically discriminates against older employees. The lawsuit follows a similar case already pending in 3M's home state.

In national headlines, the Washington Post, New York Times, and ABC News have all recently reported that workers at both ends of the age spectrum are becoming increasingly concerned that age is is a significant factor in employer decision-making.

Why has age suddenly been thrown into the spotlight?

Quite simply, it's the economy. There are fewer jobs on the market, and employers everywhere have to make tough decisions about who to cut and who to keep.

Recent graduates are competing with their more experienced counterparts for new jobs. Younger employees are usually willing to work for less, but they are also riskier hires. In a tight market where there are fewer jobs to go around, younger employees are skeptical that employers will be willing to give them a chance.

On the other hand, older workers worry that employers are looking for ways to get rid of them because they are generally the most expensive employees in terms of salaries and benefits. Older workers also feel stereotyped as being less capable of learning new technologies and adapting to rapidly changing business landscapes. According to the California lawsuit filed against 3M, older workers claim that the company disproportionately selected younger workers for intensive training and accelerated advancement programs, which resulted in fewer promotions and salary increases for employees over the age of 46.

While it's too early to say how the 3M suit will turn out, one thing is clear: employers are going to have to be more careful than ever to steep clear of age bias traps, and ensure that their policies and practices don't inadvertently lead to lawsuits.

We'll have more about how to avoid age bias claims, and make sure your policies and practices are up to snuff, in a future issue of California Employer Advisor.

Is Your Dress Code Dressed for Success?

From eyebrow piercings to "Daisy Duke" shorts, tube tops to flip flops, micro skirts to arm-length tattoos, maintaining a professional-looking workforce is a growing challenge for many California employers.

In today's super-casual society, striking the proper balance between requiring appropriate dress among your workers and respecting their legal rights can be very tricky—especially among younger employees who may never have worn "business clothes." It's a widespread problem: Recent studies have found that about half of Americans in their 20s sport a body piercing somewhere besides their ears, and one in four Americans ages 18 to 50 are tattooed.

Join us for an informative audio conference on June 2 and learn what you can restrict while still staying within the law.

AND YOUR COLLEAGUES WILL LEARN:

• The key rules you should always include in a California dress code policy—and what you should avoid



• What steps you can take to prevent visible tattoos and piercings, without overstepping your legal bounds



• How to adopt appearance policies that keep younger workers happy without upsetting their more experienced colleagues who prefer the "suit and tie" approach



• How to tailor your dress code to fit workers in different types of jobs, from the warehouse to the corner offices



• When you should—or must—make dress code exceptions for workers who cite religious, cultural, or health reasons for their appearance



• How much detail you should include in your written appearance policies



• Proven tips for effectively communicating your dress code expectations to workers



• How to deal with employees who consistently push the dress code envelope—and when you should bring in your attorney instead of confronting an employee yourself

Register now »

Find out more »