Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

bucolic_frolic

(54,077 posts)

2. At her age, 60, seniority and her expected future contribution to the company might be factors

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 21, 2025, 06:46 PM

Feb 2025

An institution must look forward. They need experienced personnel now, but also 3-5-8 years from now. Her health status may be questioned as well.

The institution could even argue those promoted need experience for their development. It was wrong to reduce her pay, nearing her retirement years, imho. Those are peak earning years for many workers. But I don't see how this situation can be pinned on reverse discrimination alone.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court tackles straight woman's 'reverse' discrimination case [View all] BumRushDaShow Feb 2025 OP

I wonder who is paying for her lawyers? jls4561 Feb 2025 #1

At her age, 60, seniority and her expected future contribution to the company might be factors bucolic_frolic Feb 2025 #2

So, you are saying that age discrimination is ok? Jose Garcia Feb 2025 #3

Here we go... slightlv Feb 2025 #4

The qualifications for a new leadership position can be subjective. fargone Feb 2025 #5