Those over age 60 were the most likely to perceive age discrimination, with 51 percent citing managers as being involved. Image: goodluz/Shutterstock.com
By: FEDweek StaffA recent Merit Systems Protection Board study found that management officials—and even the HR office—are the most common sources of age discrimination against federal employees.
The report on “prohibited personnel practices” in government found that of those barring discrimination, those involving race, sex and age were the most common across three surveys, taken in 2010, 2016 and 2021. In a survey, 11.5 percent of respondents in 2021 said they had seen or personally experienced age discrimination over the last two years, down from the 17.6 percent of 2016 but slightly above the 10.8 percent of 2010.
“It is not surprising that a respondent’s age correlates with perceptions of age discrimination, or that those over age 60 were the most likely to perceive such discrimination,” the report said. That pattern exists even though in general, those in that age range were among the least likely to report having experienced or seen any barred personnel practices. Only those age 25 and younger, reported less overall.
In the survey, respondents who saw or experienced discrimination could cite all of those responsible, if more than one. For age discrimination, managers were cited by 51 percent, supervisors by 39 percent, executives by 29 percent, coworkers by 18 percent, HR officials by 12 percent and team leaders by 11 percent.
Of the nine banned forms of discrimination, age discrimination was the least likely to have involved a co-worker and the most likely to have involved a manager. Co-workers were reported to have been involved in 39 percent of cases of discrimination based on political affiliation, for example, while managers were reported to have been involved in only 30 percent of cases of discrimination based on religion.
Involvement in age by HR officials—who presumably would be among those best informed about what types of actions are banned—fell about in the middle of the range.
Said the MSPB, “Given the extent to which PPPs are perceived as coming from multiple directions at once, agencies that are serious about preventing PPPs may need to address their underlying organizational culture and ensure that employees at all levels understand their respective roles in preventing PPPs.”
“Accordingly, where such problems exist, agencies should examine whether there is a systemic issue as opposed to focusing on individual bad actors alone . . . We recommend the use of reference checks in hiring to assess past conduct by potential employees and the use of disciplinary authorities, when necessary, to address ongoing conduct by current employees. We also recommend that leaders set the tone at the top through their own actions by serving as role models for ethical conduct,” it said.
Shutdown Meter Ticking Up a Bit
Judge Backs Suit against Firings of Probationers, but Won’t Order Reinstatements
Focus Turns to Senate on Effort to Block Trump Order against Unions
TSP Adds Detail to Upcoming Roth Conversion Feature
White House to Issue Rules on RIF, Disciplinary Policy Changes
Hill Dems Question OPM on PSHB Program After IG Slams Readiness
See also,
Legal: How to Challenge a Federal Reduction in Force (RIF) in 2025
The Best Ages for Federal Employees to Retire
Alternative Federal Retirement Options; With Chart
Primer: Early out, buyout, reduction in force (RIF)
Retention Standing, ‘Bump and Retreat’ and More: Report Outlines RIF Process
