This case study examines the legal and managerial challenges facing an HR professional dealing with an aging employee who has declined to retire. The paper addresses two key issues: the employer's limited legal recourse under current U.S. age discrimination law, and the management mistakes that created the situation in the first place. Topics covered include the absence of mandatory retirement laws in the United States, the risks of wrongful termination suits, the role of performance reviews in shaping legal exposure, and how proactive workforce planning could have prevented the employer's current predicament.
The manager in this scenario has very little legal recourse. Mandatory retirement laws no longer exist in the United States for most occupations. Therefore, she cannot legally compel Les to retire at age 65. Mandatory retirement laws apply only to positions involving significant physical or mental stress — a category that Les' role as manager of training and development does not qualify for.
The manager is also in a poor position to dismiss Les. In order to terminate his employment without exposing the organization to an age discrimination or wrongful termination suit, she would need a compelling body of evidence demonstrating Les' lack of fitness for the role. The glowing performance reviews she has given Les over the past several years significantly undermine her ability to dismiss him for cause. The best she could hope to do is find a way to transfer Les to another department, or begin today to build a documented case that might eventually support his dismissal before he retires.
"Proactive steps that could have prevented the situation"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.