Bill Overview
Title: Age Discrimination in Employment Parity Act of 2022
Description: This bill lowers the number of employees, from 20 to 15, that an employer must have in order to be subject to specified prohibitions against age discrimination in the workplace.
Sponsors: Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals aged 40 and over employed by firms with 15-19 employees
Estimated Size: 4000000
- There are regulations already in place under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) which requires companies with 20 or more employees to not discriminate against employees aged 40 and over.
- By lowering the threshold to firms with 15 or more employees, the Age Discrimination in Employment Parity Act would expand these protections to include workers at smaller firms.
- According to a U.S. Census Bureau report in 2020, there are approximately 32 million businesses registered in the U.S.
- Approximately 98.1% of U.S. businesses had fewer than 100 employees, suggesting a significant number of firms will be between the 15 and 20 employee mark.
- Employees aged 40 and over in these smaller firms would benefit from increased legal protection against discrimination.
Reasoning
- The policy affects businesses with 15-19 employees, expanding age discrimination protections. A significant percentage of businesses fall within this category, meaning older workers will have improved workplace protections.
- The cost must balance the extension of protections with the impact on businesses and the broader economy, focusing on those most impacted.
- Some individuals will experience no change, as they work in environments or industries where age discrimination is not an issue - understanding the diversity in experience is critical.
Simulated Interviews
Office Manager (Lawrence, Kansas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel more secure knowing that the law now protects me from age discrimination at my current job.
- Our company has good practices, but it's still reassuring to have legal protection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Sales Representative (Boise, Idaho)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives me peace of mind that I won't face age discrimination.
- It's important for small companies to also be aware of these issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Bookkeeper (Augusta, Maine)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've worked here a long time, and sometimes felt sidelined for younger workers.
- Knowing there's legal support makes me less anxious about my future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Veterinary Technician (Burlington, Vermont)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides a safeguard, though I'm not too worried at my current job.
- As I near retirement, it's nice to know the law supports me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Graphic Designer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While not yet 40, I see older colleagues benefit from this policy.
- It's good to know future protection will be available as I age in my career.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Technical Support Specialist (Green Bay, Wisconsin)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 18.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Previously, there was some concern over being let go due to my age.
- The policy will make management think twice about letting older staff go unfairly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Barista (Savannah, Georgia)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a relief to know I have some legal standing to prevent age-related job losses.
- I wish this had been in place earlier in my career.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Marketing Manager (Louisville, Kentucky)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial as I consider job transitions.
- It strengthens my confidence to change roles without fear of bias.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Chef (Albuquerque, New Mexico)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In our small business, familial ties often overrule the need for such policies.
- Still, I see its importance for others in similar setups.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Real Estate Agent (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 64 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I haven’t experienced discrimination personally, but it provides peace of mind.
- It’s a needed change for those fearing age bias.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $18000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $28000000)
Year 3: $18000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $28000000)
Year 5: $16000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $14000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- The balance of costs and savings relies heavily on how small businesses adapt to the new requirements and any potential increase in age discrimination claims.
- Education and informational programs may mitigate some compliance costs by smoothing the transition for businesses.
- Monitoring the real impacts on employment rates and company financial performance over time will offer insights into the efficacy of the legislation.