Ageism in the workplace is emerging to be a social issue in today’s world. Both youths and the elderly are victims of age discrimination in the workplace. The term age discrimination is also used to refer to ageism. Ageism, notably, implies discriminating and stereotyping against persons or groups relative to their age (Posthuma & Campion, 2009). The law prohibits corporations from hiring, firing or promoting individuals depending on their ages. In spite of this understanding, some organizations still practice such discriminatory acts. Herein, an organization that perpetrated ageism will be discussed.
About the Company
The organization chosen for this paper is Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW). DSW is a publicly traded company that started as Shonac Corporation. It has its headquarters in Columbus, Ohio in the United States. DSW, Inc. is a leader in the footwear and accessories retail industry that generates about U.S $3 billion annually. It has employed over 10,000 workers (Eeoc.gov, 2014) and has over 500 stores located in about 43 states (Dswshoe.com, 2017). DSW has affiliated corporate groups that operate 396 departments (leased) in the U.S. The company also invests in Town Shoes of Canada that has 188 retail stores operating under various banners such as Town Shoes, Shoe Warehouse, DSW Designer and The Shoe Company (Dswshoe.com, 2017). The customers of DSW have a passion for footwear and accessories. Besides, they are brand, style, and quality conscious. In that respect, the company aims at providing their clients with a shopping experience that meets their emotional and functional shopping needs. It does so by providing them with a broad range of collection that satisfies their tastes and preferences. Apparently, this strategy has enabled the company to gain a competitive edge in the market.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ageism at DSW
Despite its success, the company was at some point accused of perpetuating ageism. In 2014, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a case in accusing DSW of discriminating the employees relative to their age. Notably, during a reduction in force program, DSW fired employees in Midwest region who was 40 years old. The EEOC cited that DSW actions were primarily motivated by the age of the affected. The company is also said to have retaliated against those staff who opposed the idea of discriminating against the elderly at the workplace. The case commonly referred to as EEOC v. DSW Inc . was filed on 15 September 2014 in the United States District Court, Illinois (Eeoc.gov, 2014).
Court Ruling
A week after the case was presented before the tribunal, Judge Gary Fienerman ruled that the company should give the affected individuals a monetary relief of $900, 000. Besides, the ruling stated that DSW ought to inform the EEOC for three years on matters relating to age discrimination that arises in the affected regions (Midwest). Furthermore, the court suggested that the firm must educate its staff in these locations on how to prevent and eradicate ageism. Lastly, the company was required to revise its anti-discriminatory policies.
Analysis of the Court Verdict
The court ruling on this case was rational. Typically, addressing age discrimination at workplace requires the employers to be accountable for certain actions. Reports suggest that most employees are willing to continue working even after attaining their retirement age. Thus, mistreating them due to their age bracket affects their psychological and physical wellness (Boone et al., 2013). According to Posthuma & Campion (2009), older persons need to remain at work so that they can contribute significantly to economic growth. In that respect, organizations should ensure that all individuals regardless of their age have equal employment opportunities. In order to address the issue, organizations need to act responsibly. They need to report to relevant organizations whenever they experience cases of age discrimination. Besides, companies need to train their employees on this aspect so that they can understand what it entails and how they can avoid it.
Impact of the Court Ruling
The decision of the court implies that the company was operating unethically. It also showed that the firm was not fulfilling its corporate social responsibility (CSR) by providing all societal members equal employment opportunities. Typically, businesses that fail to fulfill their CSR often lose their competitive ability to attract and retain competent staff, investors, suppliers and other stakeholders who would ensure a smooth run of the company. Overall, the outcome of the case implies that the business will lose its brand image and that would affect the financial performance of the enterprise.
Measures to Promote Workplace Diversity in both Local and Multinational Corporations
Scholars have identified workplace diversity as the primary source of organizational innovativeness. Diversity encompasses the differences noted among individuals (Patrick & Kumar, 2012). Both local and multinational organizations ought to embrace diversity to remain relevant in the present economic conditions. Diversity, notably, takes into account peoples race, education, age, and gender among others. One of the ways that firms can embrace diversity is by increasing inclusiveness through initiating training that would make the employees culturally sensitive (Patrick & Kumar, 2012). Also, training that would enable the employees to understand foreign language can lead to inclusivity. Second, policies ought to be developed to resolve gender and age discriminations at the workplace. A multinational corporation, for instance, can ensure that people from various geographical divide are employed in the organization. That will help in creating a team of diverse individuals with a common goal. Utting (2007) stated that adopting CSR that address gender equity would help significantly in solving this problem.
In conclusion, implies discriminating and stereotyping against persons or groups relative to their age is a social issue nowadays. A company such as DSW, Inc was accused of ageism by EEOC. Nevertheless, the company can restore its image by being compliant and reporting all cases of age discrimination. Moreover, DSW can train its employees on matters relating to age and gender discrimination.
References
Boone James, J., McKechnie, S., Swanberg, J., & Besen, E. (2013). Exploring the workplace impact of intentional/unintentional age discrimination. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 28 (7/8), 907-927.
Patrick, H. A., & Kumar, V. R. (2012). Managing workplace diversity: Issues and challenges. Sage Open , 2 (2):1-15
Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2009). Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. Journal of management , 35 (1), 158-188.
Utting, P. (2007). CSR and equality. Third World Quarterly , 28 (4), 697-712.
