We owe a HUGE thank you to both Rebecca and Sian-Pierre for agreeing to meet with us over the phone to discuss their experiences with age discrimination in both the hiring and firing processes, as well for offering their insights on how to combat it. Please watch and share Duty Free to support their mission against ageism, both in the workplace and in our communities.
Rebecca Danigelis was a dedicated hotel housekeeper in Boston who loved her job. Danigelis worked for 55 years in the business, never taking a day off—she even had to miss her own sister's funeral to continue working. Yet, although she enjoyed working, Rebecca did not just do it for fun; she needed to make enough to support her two kids, even having to use her 401(k) money to put Sian-Pierre through college. While working, Rebecca barely had enough money in her bank account to support herself, and certainly did not have enough to fall back on just in case. Thus, as long as she kept working, she was able to keep herself and her family afloat, even if it meant she would be working for the rest of her life. This would all change when Rebecca was unexpectedly fired at age 75 due to her age.
Danigelis never thought she would lose her job; she was a committed employee who always put her work first. For that reason, Rebecca assumed that her five loyal decades of experience had proved her worth with the company. It was not until the hotel began downsizing and reorganizing that she began to notice the hotel asking other older employees to retire.
Rebecca told us, "A lot of the older employees...were saying, 'They're asking me about retiring, and I don't want to retire" (Danigelis and Regis). This pressure to retire that Danigelis details further demonstrates how employers specifically target older workers and force many of them into retirement simply because of their age.
While this reorganizing was occuring, and as she noticed these other older workers starting to be pushed into retirement or laid off, Rebecca told Sian-Pierre, "I feel like I'm very dispensable" (Danigelis). Danigelis reflects the shared perception of many older employees by their employers as burdensome and useless for their companies, which derives from the ageist stereotype that these workers are unproductive and take jobs from younger employees. Further, this feeling of being "dispensable" reflects the internalized feeling of worthlessness after older workers are targeted in the workplace.
Soon enough, the hotel began minimizing Rebecca's role in the workplace. "The thing that happened to me was," she explained, "they were taking away my duties [jobs] and stuff like that" (Danigelis and Regis). This limitation of Rebecca's work further reveals how older employees are commonly, and unfairly, excluded from participating in workplace activities and tasks due to their old age.
Then it happened. Rebecca was suddenly informed that she would no longer be working for the hotel. Danigelis explains in Duty Free, "They were reorganizing, and my position was eliminated” (Danigelis). Again, this sudden firing exposes how her experience and history with the hotel no longer mattered—only her age did. This termination further reinforces how older Americans across the country suffer incredible job uncertainty once they get older, able to be removed in an instant despite their skills and hard work.
After Rebecca was fired, she felt incredibly useless and depressed, as if she no longer had any motivation anymore. A phone call in the documentary showcased Rebecca sobbing uncontrollably (Danigelis). Rebecca told Sian-Pierre, “Not only did I lose a job, I lost a family” (Danigelis). Regis then noted, "She’s lonely, and she sad, and she’s coming around to the idea that…she might not be able to pay her bills...My mom had social security coming in, but even that wasn’t enough. She needed a job” (Danigelis).
Aligning with previous testimonies about the emotional health of possessing a job, Rebecca's post-firing state of loneliness and dejection further displays how emotionally devastating age-related terminations are for older workers. Her loss of this "family" demonstrates how detaching and socially isolating the firings of older workers are, especially after they have built relationships with their colleagues for decades like Rebecca. While obviously upsetting for anyone to lose a job, these firings are based on a factor out of older workers' control, contributing to a greater feeling of shock and hopelessness. Additionally, her extreme financial instability following this firing strengthens the evidence that many older Americans suffer disastrous economic hardships after being fired from their job. While it may be assumed by employers that Rebecca and other older employees can afford to stop working in this stage of their lives, as they have been working for most of their lives, Rebecca's insecurity in paying her bills reveals how this assumption can never be made in order to justify a termination.
Rebecca's story did not end here. Immediately after being fired, Danigelis reentered the application process, searching for a new job to get her back on her feet. Rebecca filled out countless applications and attended numerous interviews (Danigelis). After these interviews, Rebecca expressed each time how confident she was that she would land the job (Danigelis). Yet, for a span of three and a half years, Rebecca was rejected from every single one.
In the documentary, Rebecca expressed, "No one’s gonna hire someone 75 years of age...When you get to my age, you send out your resume…and people think in their head...about the old [lady] with the walker" (Danigelis). Rebecca's constant rejection from these new job opportunities further illustrates how so many employers assume that all old workers are incapable of working due to their old age, having these stereotypical images of older workers already in their head before actually meeting them. Further, Rebecca's own unemployment spell of three and a half years exemplifies the reality of how older workers have much longer times finding a new job once rehired, especially compared to younger workers, as discussed earlier.
Adding to his mother's experiences with the application and interview process, Sian-Pierre told us, "You go on LinkedIn and there are coded ways that older people are being weeded out in the job hiring process...Facebook and Twitter allow you to pitch advertising to only the audience that they want to see it. So, if there's a job opportunity posted and that job says they don’t want people over fifty to see the ad, then people over fifty wouldn’t be able to see the ad" (Danigelis and Regis). As explored earlier, and now strengthened by Rebecca's own struggles, companies are using application services to institutionally discriminating against older workers in the hiring process. Contributing to Rebecca's three and a half year long unemployment struggle, such advertisement methods are clearly effective at keeping older workers out of the office, demonstrating how easy it is for employers to bar older workers from finding jobs.
Rebecca then shared a challenge she encountered when trying to apply for a new job: “I went on LinkedIn and it says ‘Date Last Finished High School,’ and it stopped past 1979!” (Danigelis and Regis). It then deleted her application after she could not provide the answer. Similar to the use of targeted advertisement by employers, this experience reinforces how employers are can easily use application tactics to close off work opportunities for older individuals. Stereotypes of older people as unproductive workers must be so deeply ingrained into many employers' minds to prevent them from even letting these potentially talented candidates apply first.
Then, Danigelis finally got accepted at another hotel. Yet, unsurprisingly, the job she did receive was a much lower position than she had before, and only allowed her to work part-time; while happy to be back at work, Danigelis had to do more physically demanding work for less pay than she was making before she was fired (Danigelis). Rebecca's new job models the previously discussed path that many older employees are forced to take after being fired—finding lower skilled and lower paying work—a result of stereotypes that older workers cannot carry out difficult work. However, the fact that she did land a job at all means there still is hope for older individuals in search of work, even if it is minimal.
Towards the end of our interview, we asked Rebecca and Sian-Pierre on how the age discrimination in both firing and hiring can be tackled.
First, Rebecca informed us about her current legislative efforts to end age discrimination in the hiring process. At the moment, Danigelis is working with Texas Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia to pass the Protect Older Job Applicants Act (POJA) (Danigelis and Regis). This bill would ban age-related restrictions in the application process for older individuals, such as those currently being implemented on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. If put into effect, POJA would give many more older individuals the opportunities they currently lack when applying for new jobs, helping to quicken the job-finding process and keep many financially and emotionally stable as a result of employment. As of right now, POJA has been passed by the House, but continued public support is crucial to keep this bill moving.
Aside from this legal work, Rebecca shared her advice for older workers who may currently be experiencing age-related bullying or separations from their jobs. Regretting how unaware she was about age discrimination at the time of her firing, Danigelis urged that all older employees "document, document, document. 'On this day, at this time.' Document everything. I didn’t document all these things” (Danigelis and Regis). Unfortunately, this is not a permanent solution to defeating ageist mistreatment and terminations in the workplace. Yet, especially given how specific evidence of age discrimination must be in court after the Gross v. FBL ruling, it is crucial that all older employees understand the need to "document" these abuses in detail, just in case they need to file a lawsuit. Further, not only would this documentation be helpful for lawsuits, but these victims could also spread their personal testimonies, helping to awaken America's conscious about the prominence of workplace ageism and the need to crack down on it.
Lastly, Sian-Pierre shared the need for more age-diverse communities. He informed us, “The more intergenerational communities and connections that we can create...will allow for not just sympathy, but understanding” (Danigelis and Regis). Thus, it is necessary that younger and older individuals spend more time together, both in and out of the workplace, as these environments would help bridge the gap between these age groups, allowing the misconceptions of workers that currently plague the workplace to dissolve.
Examining Bias: There is definitely a possibility for Danigelis to be biased and exaggeratory regarding her experience with age discrimination in the workplace, given that it touched her life personally. While Danigelis is obviously a strong opponent of ageist policies and discriminatory workplace behaviors, the experiences she shares align heavily with the other testimonies previously presented, as well as with the statistical high frequency of age-related employment struggles explored earlier. This corroboration demonstrates how Danigelis' story is not an outlier, but instead fits with the current evidence. Similarly, Sian-Pierre has equal potential for being biased against workplace age discrimination, given his sympathy and love for his mother. Yet, his position on the National Council of Aging provides a credible background on the discussion of ageist issues in America and a deep understanding of its potential solutions, even if he clearly opposes it.