A random thought about age discrimination

[Volokh, Eugene]

    I take it that part of the reason is that age discrimination isn't
terribly odious (a judgment that may be reflected in its being subject
to only rational basis scrutiny under the Constitution, and in the
ADEA's prohibition being limited to ages 40 to 70).  I think the ADEA is
a bad idea, but the one credible justification I've seen for it is the
instrumental one of making sure that workers in their 50s don't end up
being chronically unemployed and unemployable.  And that justification
would hardly apply to Ted Olsonh or other high-government-office-caliber
people.
 
    Eugene

	-----Original Message-----
	From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson
	Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 5:05 PM
	To: Sanford Levinson; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
	Subject: A random thought about age discrimination
	
	
	As I was driving home this afternoon, I started thinking some
more about Ted Olson's "ineligibility" to be nominated because he is
"too old" at 64.  If a private company refused to consider him for a job
for which he is obviously well qualified, would they run afoul of the
age discrimination Act?  (Isn't it the case that Olson, from a
non-political perspective, is obviously more qualified than Roberts?)  I
assume that the Act doesn't apply to the President, or, indeed, to
anyone else in a political position, but why exactly not?  And, morally
if not legally, isn't age discrimination as odious when engaged in by a
president as when engaged in by a business?  Or, to reverse the
questoni, if it's perfectly all right for pols (and, sub rosa,
universities) to engage in age discrimination, then why do we care so
much, if at all, if business does it?
	 
	sandy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050812/e32651ba/attachment.html