Age Discrimination

Paper Summary:

This paper examines the Ontario Human Rights Commission's article, "A Time For Action," which argues against mandatory retirement. The paper agrees that mandatory retirement is probably not the real answer to dealing with generational economic disparity in that it creates another set of injustices. At the same time, the paper claims that the article fails to adequately and objectively address the more complex issues surrounding mandatory retirement, such as the economic disconnect between baby boomers and every generation thereafter.

From the Paper:

"After being introduced in tones that lend more to emotion, the paper develops on the fact that discrimination based on age, as opposed to an individual's ability, is what it calls "unequal treatment," which can mean a lot of things in bureaucratese ("A Time For Action." 32). In terms of this paper's premise, it means that people should not be fired for simply reaching their 65th birthday, and that is an excellent point. But what is clear from the outset is that pre-boomer generations, who are being kept out or kept down in the workforce, will rate for precious little mention in determining the right thing to do, so far as this paper is concerned."

Sample of Sources Used:

• "Time for Action: Advancing Rights for Older Workers." Ontario Human Right Commission. June 2000.

More papers on Age Discrimination:

• Essay # 90572 : "Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967"
• Term Paper # 124535 : "Age Discrimination"
• Essay # 72193 : "Age Discrimination as Applied to Faculty"
• Analytical Essay # 123563 : "Age Discrimination in Business"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: