I recently applied to a business with an ad in the local paper for a
> position there. When filling out the application they asked what my age
> was. Starting with day/month/year. This must be filled out before handing
> in application. I gave this to the receptionist and was told they would
> get back to me. My question is, is this leagal to ask your age before
> seeing you (if they get back to you). I believe many an applicant wil be
> declined due to the fact of their age before even being seen by employer.
> I don't look my age, and am in very good physical condition. Thank you
> ahead of time.

There are no illegal questions.

The problem is how the employer handles the information.

If, in your case, they use the information to weed you out because you are too old (and you would have to be over 40, since age discrimination is only what happens to geezers like me -- picking only 21 year olds out of a group of applicants aged 18 to 21 would be legal), that would be bad.

The problem would be demonstrating that such was the case.

We eliminated date of birth from our applications many, many years ago, simply to avoid any potential litigation.

We eliminated date of birth from our applications many, many years ago, simply to avoid any potential litigation.

Good idea, however if the employee is eventually hired date of birth will eventually be needed for certain types of benefit forms. Some years ago I was a small part of a large team that looked at every single piece of information that HR collected on employees. We decided that date of birth was needed by the HR-Benefits and Payroll people only, and that no one else in the company (including the rest of the HR department) had a legitimate reason to see the information. Job applications were a form owned by HR-Staffing and like Scott said, there was not only no good reason for Staffing to see birth date, but there were some very good reasons why they should not. Birth date also (for this employer) appeared no where in the main personnel file because the main purpose of that flle was to support job actions and there is no legal job action which can be taken based on date of birth. Past that, we (the employer) did not want to even given the employee's supervisor access to this or any other information that was none of their business. Isolating birth date in HR-benefits and Payroll accomplished this. (Payroll needs access to birth date to correctly calculate Group Term Life Insurance imputed income).

In New Jersey age discrimination is protected from age 18 to 70.

In New Jersey age discrimination is protected from age 18 to 70.

I was unaware of that, but...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2D7163CF935A15751C0A96F9582 60

The Supreme Court of New Jersey has cleared the way for a 25-year-old man to file an age discrimination suit.

On Wednesday, the court overturned a lower-court ruling that had thrown out a suit filed by Michael Sisler against Bergen Commercial Bank after he was fired as vice president of credit card operations. The lower court had said that the state's Law Against Discrimination was intended to apply only to workers age 40 or older.

In allowing Mr. Sisler's suit to proceed, the Supreme Court ruled that while the state's discrimination law was intended mainly to protect older workers who have historically been discriminated against, it is also broad enough to allow reverse age discrimination cases brought by younger employees.

''We find it entirely consistent with the underlying purposes of the Law Against Discrimination to infer that the Legislature would have intended to protect, for example, a 23-year-old schoolteacher who, despite her outstanding performance in the classroom, was discharged by a school board because they believed she was too young to teach,'' the court said in its unanimous opinion. ''Moreover, if we have mistakenly construed the legislative intent, the Legislature remains free to amend the L.A.D. to specify a minimum qualifying age for the law's protection.''

Mr. Sisler said that shortly after he accepted the job as vice president in 1994, the bank chairman took him to lunch, asked him his age and ''appeared shocked'' to learn he was only 25. About five months later, Mr. Sisler was fired after bank officials told him the position simply was not working out. He tried suing the bank, claiming that his age was the reason he was dismissed.

Angelo Genova, a lawyer representing the Bergen Commercial Bank, which is based in Paramus, said, ''This decision will only invite even more employment litigation than presently exists and will particularly invite wholesale claims for age discrimination.''

But Kevin Kiernan, a lawyer for Mr. Sisler, said it would be wrong to think that this decision would prompt a spate of new lawsuits by younger employees.

''We're not opening any floodgates,'' Mr. Kiernan said. ''This is a rare occurrence,'' he said, adding that his client was a young man with ''experience beyond his years.''

''If someone out of college goes to apply to be C.E.O. of General Motors and gets turned down, can someone seriously infer that there was an age discrimination case? I don't think so.''

The Supreme Court anticipated such criticism of its ruling.

''We note but reject expressed concerns that our holding will undermine protections for older workers and force employers to fill vacancies for high-level executive positions with unworldly 18-year-old applicants,'' the court said in its opinion.

New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination was enacted in 1945 and amended in 1962 to include age among the characteristics protected under the law. Unlike the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which limits its protections to workers who are at least 40 years of age, the state law does not spell out such age limits.

''We're not opening any floodgates,''

Of course, they are.:rolleyes: