There is a trend, which started prior to Covid-19, that has picked up momentum during the pandemic. People who are in their mid-to-late 30s and older appear to be victims of age biases. It’s not just due to chronological age. Compensation comes into play. Seasoned employees tend to earn more money than their younger cohorts. In a belt-tightening environment, companies desire to cut costs and save money. It’s expedient to achieve this goal by letting go of a 55-year-old and hiring a person in their 20s or early 30s, who would be paid significantly less.

There are other corporate trends that harm older workers. This includes the culling of middle-management positions. As mid-level jobs are cut, higher-paid workers find themselves unemployed. A large segment of this population are workers with more than 20 years of experience who are generally in the 45-years-and-older category. These positions are restructured to attract younger, less-compensated workers. This process of juniorization of jobs has squeezed out older people, in favor of the young.

To further save money, companies aggressively relocated jobs to lower-cost states and locations outside of the United States. The older, more costly employees are not invited to relocate. Management believes that younger workers are only too happy to have a job and will do whatever is asked of them, as they desperately need to pay off their college tuition payments.

There have been a number of high-profile age discrimination cases filed against top-tier corporations. Google settled an age discrimination lawsuit concerning its hiring practices. More than 200 job seekers over the age of 40 who had applied for positions at Google were awarded a settlement of $11 million. The tech giant was told to train employees and management about age bias, form a committee focused on age diversity—with respect to recruiting—and ensure age-related complaints are fully investigated to comply with the settlement terms.

Two months later, a legal complaint was filed by plaintiff Rodney Broome in Santa Clara County Superior Court accusing Google of age discrimination and harassment. The claimant asserted that Google and one of its managers allegedly engaged in age discrimination. The supervisor indicated in the complaint was accused of waging a campaign of harassment against the 72-year-old Broome and allegedly intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him because of his age. Allegations were raised that Broome was told by his boss that he was “old and slow,” called “grandpa,” acting as if he’s “in retirement mode” and berated as “a worthless piece of shit.”

At one point in time, companies were able to use Facebook’s job-platform screening tools to only show their job listings to job seekers who were of a certain age. It was alleged that some companies excluded older workers from ever seeing the job advertisements. Subsequently, a class-action lawsuit was filed alleging that the corporations utilized Facebook’s platform and analytics to share jobs with only younger prospective job seekers. Older potential applicants never had a chance to view the ad and, therefore, were unable to apply to the company.

In a corporate reorganization, IBM terminated the employment of roughly 20,000 American employees over the age of 40, amounting to more than 60% of its total U.S. job cuts. A class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of former IBM employees asserting age discrimination. In a cost-cutting initiative, Verizon, the largest telecommunications company, offered a “voluntary separation program” to its employees that was alleged to be a means to a massive layoff of older workers.

If you look closely, you’ll see examples of age discrimination in the job market. Job descriptions posted on company career sites and job boards usually call for candidates with three to seven years of experience. Very rarely will you see a job listing that requires 20 to 30 years of relevant experience. Many job advertisements demand knowledge and competencies with technology systems and use technology terminology that may not resonate with older workers.

The use of corporate titles, such as “AVP” and “associate” level, dissuade older job candidates from applying—due to embarrassment over taking a so-called junior role. Corporate career pages routinely show pictures of cool, happy and young employees working in their offices. There’s a paucity of people with grey hair. Hiring managers look at the candidate’s college graduation dates and don’t contact them.

The challenge confronted by older workers are the built-in presuppositions about them. Employees think that the seasoned person wants to take immediate control of the situation. There’s the belief that they’ll put their feet up on the desk and bark orders to the younger staff members and boss everyone around. The well-experienced person is presumed to be a know-it-all and will say to their younger colleagues, “Listen to me. I’ve done it this way for 30 years.” There’s an overall feeling that they just won’t fit in. Seasoned people don’t speak the same language, listen to the current music or share cultural touchstones, the younger colleagues complain.

If you are 45 years or older and looking for a new job, you’ll soon see that there are not many jobs left for you. Either they’re in other states and countries or only call for lightly experienced people. Sensing the dramatic turn of events, older workers say that they’ll take less money and a lower title. Instead of being open-minded, hiring managers think and sometimes say things like, “Sorry, we feel that you’ll be a flight risk and leave for the next best offer,” and they’ll pass on hiring the person.

To add insult to injury, many older people lack the money needed to sustain them in retirement, especially as life expectancy has increased. The Federal Reserve Bank reported roughly 44% of Americans say their retirement savings are not on track and 25% aren’t financially protected with pensions or sufficient retirement savings. The absence of company-sponsored pensions, along with insufficient savings to retire, questions surrounding the long-term viability of Social Security and accusations of bias against older workers all point to a scary, uncertain future for older workers.