Help Wanted: Spotting age bias at work

DEAR CARRIE: A friend of mine works for a well-known marketing firm. While we were discussing some workplace issues he recalled a conference call with an upper-management employee who made the following statement: “For our younger workforce, reviews, and if warranted, compensation will take place every 12 months. For our mature workforce, reviews, and if warranted, compensation will take place every 18 months.“

I have two questions: How do companies determine “mature,“ and does this company's approach constitute age discrimination? -- Age Bias?

DEAR AGE BIAS: As to your first question, what's more important is the dividing line for determining age discrimination in this country. That generally is age 40 and over.

“The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA] only forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older,“ said Elizabeth Grossman, regional attorney in the Manhattan district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states do have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination.“

Even regarding age 40, the law has some exceptions.

“It is not illegal for an employer to favor an older worker over a younger colleague, even if both are age 40 or older,“ Grossman said. But she said, “Discrimination can occur when the victim and the person who inflicted the discrimination are both over 40.“

As to your second question, she said it's risky for employers to have an age-based evaluation policy.

“I would not recommend treating younger and older employees differently in regard to either evaluation or compensation, and I would be concerned that this might bring about violations of the ADEA,“ she said. “An employer, however, might maintain an age-neutral system of evaluating newer employees more frequently than those with more seniority, which would likely benefit both the employee and the employer, and this would not violate the ADEA.“

DEAR CARRIE: My 24-year-old son became eligible for health insurance on my plan as of July 1. I turned in the forms to my human resources department in early May. But by mid-July my carrier still didn't show my son as having coverage. My carrier claims the delay was my employer's fault; my employer blames the carrier. During the delay my son needed prescription medicines that would have been covered if his benefits had kicked in on July 1. My question is: Should the coverage have begun on July 1, or should it at least be retroactive to that date? -- Mom's RX

DEAR MOM'S RX: Assuming all was in order, the coverage date should be retroactive to July 1, said Susan Sajiun-Fitzharris, vice president at HUB International Northeast, an insurance brokerage in Hauppauge. Some factors the carrier would consider include whether your son was eligible (for example, what life event triggered his eligibility); whether you met deadlines for submitting information; and whether you completed the forms.

“Assuming all is in line, the effective date should be 7-1, and typically the insurance carrier will honor expenses incurred as of that date,“ she said.

So, if necessary, take information to your carrier to clarify things.

For more on what laws prohibit age discrimination go to eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm or eeoc.gov/employers/coverage.cfm.