Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Does the Governor support uniform enforcement of the employment discrimination laws?

By

Last month the Governor annuouced a reduction in force at the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.  Aside from the fact that with the current economy, more folks may need assistance in this area, the Governor appears to have taken advantage of a little known exception to the age discrimination laws that exempt the Commonwealth and appears to have focused the layoffs on workers over the age of 40.

Any other employer in the Commonwealth and most other states are not subject to this unusual legal exception.  Had the the law been followed, notices to each employee would have identified the positions eliminated and the ages of those let go.  

It is curious why this administration which prides itself of civil rights, would take advantage of this exception and act in this manner.  Why shouldn’t we be acting in accordance with the spirit as well as the lettter of the law?

Bruce Leicher

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. M.G.L. c 151B, the Massachusetts anti-discrimination law, defines a covered employer this way,

    <

    p>

    The term “employer” does not include a club exclusively social, or a fraternal association or corporation, if such club, association or corporation is not organized for private profit, nor does it include any employer with fewer than six persons in his employ, but shall include the commonwealth and all political subdivisions, boards, departments and commissions thereof.

     

    • You are correct but I was referring to the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act which was enacted by the Federal Government to prevent discrimination in layoffs of older persons.  MA and a few states have exemptions apparently.  It is surprising though that our administration chooses not to comply with it as a matter of policy.

      <

      p>As I understand it, it prohibits disproportionately choosing older works in layoff selection and in my past experience, no company would be able to layoff such a high percentage of older workers without being held liable and responsible.

      <

      p>Bruce

      • The Supreme Court held that the ADEA provision for money damages was unconstitutional as applied to the states.  As I said before, there is always the state age discrimination law, assuming there is even a valid claim.  

  3. I thought (please correct me if I’m wrong) the reduction was the result of a loss of certain federal funding. Is it possible that the positions that were eliminated were funded by the feds? In many state agencies there are employees who are paid from specific accounts with specific funding. When the funding is lost, so may be the positions.  

    • That might be the case, but it still would not justify a discriminatory reduction in force.

Archives