In December 2013, the EEOC brought this suit against the County of Maui Police Department in the U.S. District Court of Hawaii, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In this case, it is alleged that the County of Maui Police Department did not hire a candidate because of ...
read more >
In December 2013, the EEOC brought this suit against the County of Maui Police Department in the U.S. District Court of Hawaii, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In this case, it is alleged that the County of Maui Police Department did not hire a candidate because of his age (45). The EEOC asked for (a) a permanent injunction enjoining the police from engaging in any employment practices which results in discrimination on the basis of age; (b) an order that the police institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for persons forty (40) years of age and older; (c) an order that the police provide wages and benefits to the candidate; and (d) an order that the police provide rightful-place reinstatement with seniority restored or front pay.
In 2009, the candidate applied to the County of Maui Police Department. He met all minimum qualifications for training and experience, and he passed the initial written civil service exam with a high score above 90 points. Then he was scheduled for an oral interview. During the interview, the panel made age-based remarks including "I doubt someone your age could handle the stress of training" in addition to whether he could perform the physical holds required due to his age, and whether someone his age could take directives from a younger person. They decided not to hire the candidate. During the hiring period of January through October 2009, at least 28 applicants were hired who were younger than the candidate and were less qualified for the position than the candidate on the basis of their education, experience and civil service written exam scores.
On May 6, 2016, the parties entered into a three year consent decree that required the defendant to pay the charging party $24,000 in unclassified damages and required the defendant to modify its anti discrimination policy, establish record-keeping procedures, improve its compliance efforts, provide anti-discrimination training to employees to prevent future discrimination including providing training to employees, and report to an independent monitor.
Kowa Takata - 10/28/2014
Sean Mulloy - 03/21/2018
compress summary
