Outlaw age discrimination

AGE IS just a number. We often say that, but how seriously do we mean it? A recent call made by chairman of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal Donna Prowell-Raphael suggests not seriously enough, at least when it comes to the protection of the law.

Addressing the opening of the tribunal’s 2024/2025 term on October 1, the chairman lamented gaps in the legal framework.

“We must address age discrimination more robustly in our jurisprudence, recognising the value of our older adults and the unique challenges they face,” she urged. “Making age discrimination unlawful would be a pivotal step towards ensuring career opportunities remain available and/or open to all who are willing and able to contribute.”

We concur.

It’s surprising existing legislation does not properly address this issue. Age is not among the protected statuses under the Equal Opportunity Act. This means an individual can be denied a job simply because of how old they happen to be. In contrast, Barbados lists age among the grounds protected by its anti-discrimination law. So, too, does Guyana.

The issue becomes more pressing when we consider the general increase in life expectancy over the last two decades. According to data from the World Health Organization, life expectancy at birth rose from 69.7 years in 2000 to 76.1 years in 2019. (From 2020, the aberration of the covid19 pandemic, which disproportionately affected those over 65, began to reverse the trend.)

Not only are people living longer, but the proportion of older people has also been increasing exponentially over the past five decades, according to the Division of Ageing of the Ministry of Social Development and Family Services. Up to recently, 13.4 per cent or 177,767 people were over 60. That is potentially a quarter of the total workforce.

Outlawing age discrimination need not mean people who are unable to do a job will have to be employed. For instance, in the UK, legislation bans age discrimination generally while allowing employers to put an upper age limit on jobs that require a high level of physical fitness.

The discussion around mandatory retirement for public servants is a sign that attitudes towards ageing are shifting. More people wish to work beyond arbitrary lines that have little to do with ability.

At the same time, the questions dogging political figures like Joe Biden, 81, who was forced to withdraw from the US presidential race, and Donald Trump, 78, bring home the enduring relevance of age in the minds of many. Locally, such questions linger, too, in relation to Dr Keith Rowley, 74, and Kamla Persad-Bissessar, 72.

But there’s a difference between the optics of age and actual performance.

That’s why the law must change.