I am 62 yrs old and have worked for an insurance agency for 8 years. I was hired as a receptionist but over the years have been asked to perform various operational duties for the insurance agents. When I was hired they specifically asked me if I was good with numbers and I said NO! They then proceeded to hire me as a receptionist. I had a review yesterday and was told I had 30 days to improve or they were going to have to let me go. All of the areas that they say need improvement are all operational and have nothing to do with my job as a receptionist. Can they changed my job description over the years to included these items and then fire me because I can not do them? At age 62 what other job options am I going to have now especially after being with this company for 8 years.

Yes, they can add to your job duties and yes, they can fire you for not being able to perform them. The fact that you were hired as a receptionist does NOT mean they are prohibited from requiring you to do anything else.

The ONLY way this is going to be illegal is if you can provide believable and supportable evidence that this is a pretext and they are REALLY firing you because of your age. And the fact that you were hired at the age of 54 is not going to be helpful in supporting such a claim.

As for new employment, my mother changed jobs for various reasons 4 times between the ages of 55 and 70, the last time when she was 66. She was NEVER out of work during that time. Some employers PREFER older workers.

Here is what the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has to say about age discrimination claims....
__________________________________________________ ____________
Where a plaintiff relies on indirect proof of discrimination, claims of age or
disability discrimination under the MHRA, like those under the federal antidiscrimination statutes, are analyzed under the burden-shifting analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131, 1137 (8th Cir. 1999) (en banc). This framework requires that the plaintiff set forth a prima facie case in order to shift the burden of producing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision to the employer. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802-04; see also West v. Conopco Corp., 974 S.W.2d 554, 556-57 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998); Cook v. Atoma Int’l of Am., Inc., 930 S.W.2d 43, 45 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). If the employer proffers a nondiscriminatory reason, then the employee must prove that the reason is a pretext for discrimination.
McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804. Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party has demonstrated that even with all facts and inferences construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the MHRA, a
plaintiff must show that he is a member of a protected age group, that he met
applicable job qualifications, that he was discharged, and that he was subsequently replaced by a younger employee. See Calder v. TCI Cablevision of Mo., Inc., 298 F.3d 723, 729 (8th Cir. 2002). To establish discrimination on the basis of disability, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he is disabled and can perform his job with or without reasonable accommodation, that he was discharged because of his disability, and that there is evidence from which a jury could infer that his protected status was a factor in the discharge. Devor v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas City, 943 S.W.2d 662, 665-66 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
__________________________________________________ ______________

Discrimination claims are exceptionally hard to prove... however, before you can even consider filing suit, you have to file a claim with either the EEOC or the Missouri Human Rights Commission. Here in Missouri, these two government agencies have a "work sharing" program... in other words, when you file a claim with one agency, it automatically files a claim for you with the other agency. If you do not file, then you will in all probability lose your rights to sue later on.... You have to obtain what is called a "right to sue letter"....be careful here...the Mo. Comm on Human Rights will sometimes issue a letter asking if you want your right to sue letter now or wait to see what happens in their investigation....if it were me, I'd take the letter because it is a good indication they are telling you that you might not have a valid case and if so, they will refuse your right to sue letter later.