National Clothesline

don’t remember how many “Police Academy” movies there have been, but I’m sure there were at least five. I believe that Hollywood should send some screenwriters to Philadelphia to see if there is a movie to be made from an age discrimination suit filed there.

It seems that Philadelphia had no upper age limit on academy recruits when a 73-year-old former cop and FBI agent enrolled in 2000.

The recruit, who had not been on the police force for more than 26 years, was required to undergo the complete training, which was sometimes waived for ex-police officers.

The recruit filed an age discrimination lawsuit when he flunked certain tests, alleging among other things that the waiver was denied because of his age, and that he was subjected to harassment and ridicule because of his age.

For the record, the recruit ran a mile and a half at an 18:05 pace, about two minutes longer than required. He also failed a night-firing firearms’ examination. Not bad.

The federal court found for the City, ruling that the recruit was not entitled to a waiver of the training, and that the City was reasonable in its approach to the examinations and other requirements. The case, however, brings home several points.

First, older workers present a difficult problem for employers if their performance starts to deteriorate. Not every employer can reasonably require its employees to run a mile to see if they are still able to do their jobs.

Therefore, I recommend to my clients that they develop objective, job-related performance criteria and apply them across the board to all employees in that position. If the older worker does not meet that criteria, give him or her a written performance evaluation and give him or her a reasonable amount of time to improve.

Second, older workers who are fired will report or remember every time someone called him or her an “old person,” an “elder statesman,” or a “relic.” What was good natured kidding will be magically transformed into ageism or harassment based on age. Call a screw-up a “senior moment,” and you could find yourself in the middle of a lawsuit.

So, if the employee himself encourages references to his age, make sure you document somewhere that you (1) talked to the employee about the references to age; and (2) confirmed that the employee either encouraged it or did not wish any action to be taken to stop it.

On a religious note, let me begin with a disclaimer. I am a management labor lawyer who wants to protect my clients from charges of religious discrimination. My beliefs are personal, and I agree that it can be dangerous to discuss religion and politics. With that in mind, I wish to address some problems that may come up in the workplace based on religion.

It is reported that the number of “faith friendly” employers is on the rise. In these companies, employees are encouraged to be open about their religious beliefs.

Further, many devout employers like to run their businesses as they believe their Maker would want them to do.

Unfortunately, there has been a 30 percent increase in the number of religious discrimination complaints, some of which may be caused by employers trying to share their beliefs.

Problems can arise when employees are approached by their employer or supervisors to become involved in a church or faith dear to those managers. Problems can arise when employees bring in religious icons, paintings, or other displays.

I once worked in a law firm where an attorney had an original painting of Jesus tapping on the windows of the United Nations building on his wall. It was a source of a lot of discussion, not all favorable.

A company recently lost a lawsuit because an employee was fired for refusing to sign a “diversity” policy. Under that policy, the employee agreed to tolerate and embrace the views of others. For religious reasons, he would not sign, especially if signing meant he had to tolerate or embrace the religious or homosexual practices of other employees.

Religious discrimination issues are so difficult for employers to resolve because there is an obligation to accommodate religion, while at the same time not discriminate against employees based on religion.

Further, there appears to be no obligation to accommodate the religious beliefs of employers. Therefore, I recommend dealing with religious issues on a case by case basis. Try to find a common sense solution that allows religious beliefs to coexist, without causing employees to get angrier or more rigid in their beliefs. Further, it would not be a bad idea to include religious harassment in the general anti-harassment policy.

It seems that virtually every subject is a delicate one these days in the workplace. That may be true, but no one seems to be talking about repealing Title VII or the Age Discrimination Act. Until that happens, remember that innocent words today can become relevant testimony tomorrow. Pray for common sense.

Frank Kollman is a partner in the law firm of Kollman & Saucier, PA, in Baltimore, MD. He can be reached by phone at (410) 727-4300 or fax (410) 727-4391. His firm’s web site at www.kollmanlaw.com has articles, sample policies, news and other information on employee/employer relations.