AGE-OLD STORY

Rather than going away, work-related discrimination of older people, say some legal experts, has continued largely unabated

Russell Maisano talks about the relationships he’s forged over the years. The Clinton Township, Mich., man, who built a career selling cars and then managing others, says it’s the rapport with his customers that keeps them coming back. Why sell someone just one car, when you can sell them 10 over the years? he asks.

That sales wisdom comes from 37 years in the business at a Macomb County, Mich., car dealership, but Maisano, 59, has been without a job since January when he was fired as he was home battling a rare form of throat cancer.

“I was looking forward to going back to work. It was my whole life,” said Maisano, whose firing prompted an outpouring of support and outrage on Facebook as well as a GoFundMe effort to cover his medical expenses. Maisano, who has sued the dealership, contends the family-owned business wanted to rid the company of its older employees to reduce the cost of insurance premiums.

Although the details of Maisano’s case are unique, claims of work-related age discrimination in the United States are not.

In 2016, the most recent full year available, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received 20,857 claims of violations under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. It was the ninth year in a row that the number of claims has exceeded 20,000, with the highest number in 2008 as the effects of the Great Recession began to truly take hold.

Experts say those numbers do not tell the whole story. Some employment law attorneys note that many potential discrimination cases are never reported because employers may offer a severance deal in exchange for giving up future claims involving age or numerous other types of discrimination.

Claims of work-related age discrimination can involve any aspect of employment and can be difficult to prove, according to AARP.

A current federal court lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles alleges that the company used an evaluation system adversely affecting older workers.

That system, according to the suit by current and former employees, used employee photos and other information indicating how long the workers had been with the company in determining bonuses and other factors.

The company tried to force the case to arbitra-