Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. FRANKEL. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Virginia and my colleagues for their work on this bill.

Mr. Chair, Ben Franklin signed the Declaration of Independence at age 70. Grandma Moses started painting at age 76. We should never, ever put an age limit on our dreams or the ability to make a living.

But here is the thing, Mr. Chair: You can be a dedicated employee, having spent decades building a career that you are proud of, taking care of your family, putting your kids through college, saving for your future. You need and want to work and, one day, when you are ready, retire with dignity. But then, out of nowhere, your life is shattered. Your bosses say: ``You are fired.''

They list their reasons. However, you know the truth. You have been let go to make way for a younger employee. Now you are without a salary, without your health insurance. You know your odds of getting a new job are slim when you are competing with 20-year-olds and 30-year- olds who are willing to work for lower wages and fewer benefits.

For too many seniors, Mr. Chair, this is a reality.

Nearly three in five workers have experienced age-based discrimination, not only unfairly depriving the worker of a paycheck but taking valuable workers out of the workforce.

Now, a Supreme Court decision has made it even harder to prove age discrimination.

Mr. Chair, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act would give senior workers the protection they deserve and society the workers that we need.

The poet Robert Browning said: ``Grow old with me, the best is yet to be.''

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this very, very good bill.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I really find it puzzling that our colleagues paint such a dismal picture of employers. We hear this over and over and over again from the other side of the aisle.

As my colleague from Michigan said a little while ago, we have 7 million unfilled jobs in the country right now. Every employer I know, before I came to Congress and since I have been in Congress, cherishes his or her employees. They don't dismiss employees out of hand just because of their age. They just don't do that. They value their employees.

But the other side of the aisle has a real distorted picture of what happens in the private sector.

I want to say that H.R. 1230 doesn't achieve the goals espoused by the bill's sponsors, and let me provide much-needed truth in advertising about this bill.

Under the bill as written, most plaintiffs, even if they are successful, will not be entitled to receive any monetary damages, payments, or reinstatement. Here is why.

Generally, a victim of discrimination is entitled to be made whole, to be put in the position the individual would have been in without the discrimination. This can include monetary damages, back pay, reinstatement, attorney's fees, and court costs.

The Supreme Court, in the 2009 Gross case, eliminated the defense that allows an employer to demonstrate it would have taken the same employment action regardless of age. H.R. 1230 restores this employer defense.

An overwhelming majority of employers will be able to make this demonstration to the court, and when they make that demonstration, under H.R. 1230, the plaintiff will not be entitled to receive any monetary damages, payments, or reinstatement, although the plaintiffs' attorneys will be entitled to fees. So the only party who wins in these cases are the trial lawyers.

In addition, H.R. 1230 is specifically written to allow plaintiffs to survive a summary judgment motion that would end their case. But the plaintiff is in for a surprise later when, after going to court, he or she receives no monetary damages, and the only one getting paid is his or her attorney. To add insult to injury, the employee may have to pay income taxes on the fees that are awarded to his or her attorney.

The bill's sponsors never explain how adding the provisions that include mixed-motive claims and restoring the employer defense allowing employers to demonstrate they would have taken the same action regardless of the impermissible factor, such as age, will benefit employees. In fact, these provisions will only help trial lawyers.

H.R. 1230's title and provisions are yet another case of false advertising and empty promises for older workers.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source