But a state setting a minimum age is not the same as saying a business has to sell to that minimum age.
Some states have age restrictions for tobacco sales as well.
Age discrimination is built to go the other way - to prevent discrimination against people over 40 (I believe the threshold is still 40).
EDIT: also, yes, the protected class stuff of Title VII is limited to employment relationships and doesn’t touch commercial transations.
My ex-girlfriend (dated her from late 2009-early 2012) worked at their corporate HQ for the last year or two of our relationship (for all I know she still does, it’s been years since we ran into one another). She actually seemed quite happy with the job, but given that she’d been waiting tables for 2+ years since graduating college, I think any move to a more professional environment was a welcome change.
Had never even really given this much thought re: car rentals (like, I knew that some companies wouldn’t rent to you under age 25, or would charge a hefty extra fee, but I had never pondered the legality of it).
1 Like
Fun side fact. My dad is in the “predator hunting” industry. According to him, every higher up he’s run into at Dick (regarding stocking with his product) has come off like an elitist asshole. He absolutely loves working with Cabellas and Bass pro shop
In my area at least, Dicks is more of a mall kinda store. They seem to focus a lot more on under armor and sports sales than they do the gun side, but that could not line up with reality, so grain of salt
I’m saying that age discrimination law already exists just not specifically in this context and, imo, if it were challenged as “ageism” the ruling would side with the 18-21 crowd. I think the cake ruling, in particular, opens the door here.
That’s obviously just my opinion. Like I said, I doubt this would ever reach a court. I doubt there are many 18-21 year olds willing to challenge in court. Maybe the NRA or some other group will, but what would be the point?
Right, I mention this a few posts later. Wouldn’t it likely apply in the other direction if challenged in court?
1 Like
I can just see it being used as an argument if a commercial transaction was challenged.
No one stopped laws being passed that restricted legal drinking age and tobacco sales.
It made all the sense to the comment you replying to. I’m sorry you disagree. That is all.
EDIT: That’s also a very Zep thing to say … I think you’re just fucking around now…
Same here. I can spend hours in Bass - can’t wait to get out of a Dick’s (yes, I see it).
1 Like
Other direction? Not sure I undrrstand what you mean here.
I didn’t disagree; I don’t know what you are asking. Again, I’m in what?
Right because the collective power of the 18-21 crowd is minuscule compared to the over 21 crowd and I can’t image there are many groups if any that would spend the $$$ to take this to court. I personally think 21 to drink is silly, but I’m not spending 10s of thousands of dollars to challenge it. I’m in my 30s…
As in not allowing an employer to discriminate against those under a certain age, the 18-21 crowd specifically. Can an employer refuse to hire you based on the fact that you’re under 21? I would think in our society the answer is no, generally, but I also doubt it’s been challenged in court either. I’m not even sure how you’d prove it.
We also know, based on the cake ruling, a seller can’t refuse to sell based on sexual orientation, which as far as I know is not a protected class under VII (sex is, but sexual orientation?). Imo, you could make the same argument for age.
There are states where you have to be at least 21 to tend bar.
Sure because the drinking age is 21…
In some states you can be 18 and tend bar even though the drinking age is 21. Age discrimination based on youth is government supported and mandated so it would be hard to fight.
Right… You’re just working not drinking. I don’t see a conflict here?
Right, in some cases the government “discriminates” against youth, like with drinking laws, and that’s fine. This is a private enterprise unilaterally deciding not to serve a group that otherwise has the legal right to make a purchase, based solely on their age.
Let’s look at it a different way, if Dicks decided not to sell “assault” weapons to people over the age of 55 because most dementia sufferers are over 55 (making this up), do you think that would fly?
I don’t based on age discrimination precedent, the cake scenario, and the voting power of this group.
Lol, ya, that seems to be the general theme…
I’m thinking kids read Animal Farm as if it’s not a tragedy…
1 Like
Finance departments are a whole world unto themselves. Dick’s has a reputation as a fun place to work. But the Finance group is a hell hole where people work 80 hours on salary and rarely stay longer than a year. Alcoa has a similar reputation in the burgh.
1 Like
Yes - SCOTUS rules on this not that long ago (2009, maybe?), saying Title VII didn’t protect “reverse age discrimination” - only people 40 and older can claim discrimination.
1 Like