7 Shocking Examples of Age Discrimination in the Workplace
The following contribution comes from the website of Schaefer Halleen, LLC, which describes itself as follows: Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Schaefer Halleen is dedicated to providing the highest quality legal representation to individuals and groups affected by illegal conduct by corporate or government entities. The following principles guide our practice and future growth, and enable each client to understand the values that founded the firm and drive our focus on experience, commitment, and results.
The article is authored by Darren M. Sharp, a senior attorney at Schaefer Halleen, LLC, where he represents clients primarily in employment law, condominium law, and other litigation. In employment law, Darren focuses his practice on discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation claims, with a client portfolio ranging from manual laborers to senior corporate executives.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects employees over the age of 40 from age discrimination and harassment by their employers. This federal law does not protect employees under 40, but fortunately, Minnesota also has laws that protect them.
The Minnesota Human Rights Act prohibits employers from using age as a basis for refusing to hire, discriminating against, or firing someone over the age of 18. This means that employers are equally prohibited from using age as a factor in the hiring decision when evaluating a 22-year-old or a 60-year-old candidate.
Although Minnesota has done its best to prevent age discrimination, unfortunately, employees continue to fall victim to age bias in various work contexts. Here are seven examples of how and where employees can be discriminated against or harassed because of their age.
- Age Bias Outside the Tech Sector
The tech industry has been stereotyped as a job for younger generations, and we have certainly seen numerous examples of tech companies or tech jobs being filled by younger workers, while older workers are unfairly dismissed.
However, this type of age bias is by no means limited to the tech industry or IT jobs. Layoffs and downsizing continue to affect older employees with long tenures with alarming frequency, and new management often encounters problems with older employees who have successfully performed their jobs for years. Age discrimination occurs throughout the American workplace, regardless of the industry.
- Age Discrimination in Nonprofit Organizations
While there are excellent nonprofit organizations to work for, just because an organization has a good mission doesn’t mean it will be a good place to work. Nonprofits are subject to the same labor laws as everyone else, and we see them constantly violating them; age discrimination is no exception.
- Age Discrimination by Older Employees
It’s not just younger managers who engage in age bias; older managers do too. Employers and their lawyers, seemingly unaware of this, often point to the age of the decision-maker (who was the same age as or older than the employee who was fired or passed over) to claim that age did not influence the decision. This excuse is not an excuse: under Minnesota law, age cannot influence a major employment decision, regardless of who the decision-maker is or their age.
- Age Discrimination in Healthcare
Healthcare professionals can have long and successful careers. Others enter the field as a second career or adapt their practice focus after years of experience. Regardless of the reason, healthcare professionals often continue working well into later life and frequently maintain high performance. When there are older employees in the workplace, as in the healthcare sector, age bias tends to creep in over time, unfortunately.
- Age Bias Against Younger Workers
The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits age discrimination against employees 40 years of age or older. The Minnesota Human Rights Act, on the other hand, protects all Minnesota employees from age discrimination, regardless of their age. In other words, in Minnesota, it is illegal to use age as a factor in employment decisions for any older worker. This means that hiring applicants based on their age is a violation of the law.
- Age Bias During the Hiring Process
Workers are protected from discrimination at all stages of employment, including the hiring process. Employers cannot discriminate against older job applicants by assuming they lack the necessary skills, are not tech-savvy, or will not be a good fit with younger colleagues. Conversely, some employers prefer older employees and overlook younger applicants because they perceive them as less «expert» or «experienced.» If both candidates have similar qualifications, employers cannot decide whom to hire based on age. Unfortunately, some employers will try to pass off their discrimination as a genuine concern about the applicant’s qualifications.
- Passing Out Employees for Promotions and Bonuses
Age discrimination often becomes apparent when employees compete for promotions and bonuses. Older workers may be passed over for promotions in favor of younger, less experienced employees perceived as having greater potential. Sometimes, companies choose not to promote older employees because they assume they will consider retiring sooner than younger team members.
When performance bonuses are distributed, some employers justify not awarding them to certain team members based on their age. However, age alone does not predict performance, so your employer should be able to articulate clear performance issues if they decide not to award you a bonus or promote another employee to a vacant position.
Recognizing Hidden Forms of Age Discrimination
While these seven examples are among the most visible, age discrimination often hides behind coded language or subtle workplace patterns.
Phrases like “energetic,” “digital native,” or “culturally savvy” in job descriptions
may seem innocuous, but they often serve as indicators of a preference for younger candidates. Similarly, company cultures that value “fresh ideas” and devalue experience may marginalize older employees who bring valuable institutional knowledge.
Employers may also exclude older workers from professional development programs, assume they are not interested in advancement, or exclude them from team-building activities that favor the interests of younger employees. These practices, though sometimes unintentional, contribute to an environment where age bias is normalized.
To combat this, employees should document instances where age-based comments,
patterns, or decisions arise. Saving performance reviews, emails, and job offers can help prove discriminatory intent should a complaint need to be filed.
How to Protect Yourself from Age Discrimination
If you suspect you are being treated unfairly because of your age, consider these steps:
Keep records of employment decisions, communications, and performance reviews.
Review company policies to identify inconsistencies between stated values and actual practices.
Report concerns internally through HR channels or in writing to your supervisors.
Consult with an employment attorney familiar with the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
A legal advisor can help you assess whether your situation meets the legal definition of age discrimination and what remedies are available, such as reinstatement, back pay, or compensation for emotional distress.
How to Deal with Age Discrimination at Work
Workers face age discrimination in a variety of ways, and this list of workplace examples is not exhaustive. At Schaefer Halleen, we have seen seemingly well-intentioned employers make illegal decisions based on age for years. If you believe your employer has subjected you to this prohibited conduct, please contact us. We are experts in defending employees who are victims of age discrimination in Minnesota and would be happy to discuss this matter with you.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are some common examples of hiring discrimination?
Hiring discrimination can occur when employers rely on stereotypes or assumptions rather than qualifications. Examples include rejecting older applicants based on perceived retirement dates, favoring «younger» candidates for cultural fit, or including age-related terms, such as «recent graduate,» in job postings.
What are some examples of age discrimination in the workplace?
Examples include being passed over for promotions in favor of younger employees, being excluded from training or leadership opportunities, or hearing comments that imply you are «too old» for certain tasks. Firing or demoting employees based on age-related assumptions is also illegal.
How does ageism manifest itself in the workplace? Ageism often manifests subtly, such as excluding older employees from mentoring programs, assuming they can’t adapt to technology, or undervaluing their contributions compared to younger colleagues. These behaviors reinforce bias even without overt discrimination.
What situations are considered age discrimination?
Any employment decision (hiring, firing, promotion, salary, or job assignment) based on age rather than merit can be considered age discrimination. It is also discriminatory to harass someone with persistent age-related jokes or comments that create a hostile work environment.
Can you give examples of age discrimination in the workplace?
Yes. Common examples include replacing older employees with younger ones during reorganizations, offering fewer career development opportunities to older staff, or denying bonuses based on assumptions about retirement plans.
How to Deal with Hostile Candidates in Interviews?
The following contribution comes from Reddit, which describes itself as follows: Reddit is home to thousands of communities, endless conversations, and genuine human connection. Whether you’re interested in breaking news, sports, TV fan theories, or an endless stream of the internet’s cutest animals, there’s a community on Reddit for you.
Most interviews take place at recruitment events. I interview 8 to 16 candidates per week. I estimate that 1 in 40 candidates becomes hostile or starts to be negative.
I have 3 years of experience in research engineering and 9 years at a FAANG company. A FAANG company is one of the five American tech giants that make up the acronym: Facebook (Meta), Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google (Alphabet), known for their enormous market capitalization, innovation, and dominance in their markets, significantly influencing global culture and the economy.
Regarding interviews, my experience has been that some candidates are hostile or disgruntled with me.
I’ve been observed by colleagues and recruiters, and this has happened while they were interviewing. People think it’s because I look young for my age. They told me my interview process was standard.
Since the start of the pandemic and the shift to remote interviews, I’ve noticed that candidates are less upset. Almost all of our positions now have a permanent remote option. The number of applicants and the number of interviews has increased.
With that, I’ve encountered more unpleasant candidates. They’re usually people who fit the definition of a long-term, experienced developer.
I’ve noticed an increase in the number of senior or higher-level candidates who just want to code.
They want to «skip the talk» (the behavioral questions) and dive right into the code. When we finish coding and I go to ask more behavioral questions, they tell me I don’t know what I’m doing and that I should pose more complex problems.
I don’t understand the candidates who refuse. «Are you stupid?», «Are you kidding me?», «Do you know how to program?», «Even if you make me an offer, I probably won’t accept it.» I’m not sure if they think that behavior will get them an offer or if they’re just bored and want to see how long I can tolerate it.
My usual response is: «Sorry, I don’t have much experience conducting interviews. You’re right, do you have any further comments? Please be sure to repeat this to HR or the recruiting department.»
Most candidates will still complain, but they’re no longer hostile. Then I’ll say, «Can you answer some of my questions? I need to include the answers in my feedback,» and they’ll move on with the interview.
With college or entry-level candidates, I don’t recall seeing that much hostility. I’ve unintentionally made a few cry, but most are very kind.
As for colleagues, we tend to be friendly by talking to each other privately and informing each other of any issues. There’s a lot of goodwill on the team. Many people don’t have bad intentions; it’s usually just a matter of misunderstandings or misconceptions.
If you encounter hostile or negative candidates, what do you do? Do you try to defuse the situation? And if so, how?
How should candidates professionally respond to hostile recruiters?
The following contribution comes from Dinesh Sharma, Assistant General Manager at UFLEX.
Sometimes, the job profile is characterized by the dual reporting requirements of reporters, a complex work environment, highly demanding managers, the management of expatriates from different countries, and the HR department must hire people with qualities such as firm opinions, technical expertise, confidence, and strong willpower.
The candidate should appear calm and composed.
The answer should be precise and based solely on facts.
You must be firm in your answers and not hesitate, as the interviewers will try to influence and test you.
Most of the time, candidates respond thoughtfully and intelligently. These interviews play a good role in bringing out their true personality; however, there are several dos and don’ts for recruiters: a) It should be a panel interview; b) If there is a female candidate, there should be a female recruiter; c) The recruiter should not ask personal questions.
Aggressive Job Searching and Why It Works Better
The following contribution comes from EmploymentCrossing, the world’s leading job aggregation service. Job search and reporting, technological innovation
Headquartered in Pasadena, California, with offices worldwide, EmploymentCrossing locates and ranks jobs across all available sources and offers its highly specialized research to job seekers, recruiters, and other job portals in North America.
Author: Team
Aggressive job searching is a non-traditional, job seeker-oriented, not employer-oriented, approach. The goal of this approach is to find a position that maximizes the individual’s job satisfaction. To do this, the applicant must alternate between being a politician, a detective, and a salesperson, using professional job search techniques in each area that contradict both the customs and preferences of employers. Aggressive job searching is a more effective approach than traditional methods. To understand why and to be an effective aggressive job seeker, it is necessary to fully understand the theory behind this approach.
The Familiarity Advantage
Aggressive job searching rests on two fundamental principles: «Nobody likes strangers» and «It’s not a dirty word.» «Nobody likes strangers» refers to the tendency of most people to prefer dealing with familiar people. In job searching, this means that interviewers will tend to hire people with whom they have a better rapport—people they believe they know better, understand better, appreciate more, or trust more. This applies across the board. When all applicants have relatively equal abilities, such a rapport creates a subjective familiarity advantage that, even if relatively noticeable, is enough to tip the decision in favor of the more empathetic candidate. If the familiarity advantage is strong enough, it can compensate for many mistakes made by an applicant with a weaker background. When an applicant is clearly superior in terms of ability and experience (which rarely happens) and also has the familiarity advantage, that advantage simply reinforces that superiority. It is this principle that explains why incumbent candidates tend to have a significant advantage in political elections. The better you know someone, the more comfortable you’ll feel with them as a leader, colleague, or subordinate, to the point that their qualifications become significantly less important.
The familiarity advantage isn’t limited to people the hiring manager has known personally, for a long time, and well.
This advantage can be granted to candidates with whom the interviewer has spoken more frequently or for longer periods, to someone recommended by a trusted third party, or simply to someone with whom the interviewer is more compatible.
The decision-maker uses the familiarity advantage to reduce the risk of making a poor choice. Job seekers can’t obtain this advantage based on their resumes, but only through personal contact.
Therefore, in an aggressive job search, the strategy is to become the most well-known candidate, the least «unknown.» To do this, you must get to know as many influential people in as many companies as possible, speak with them regularly to uncover job opportunities, determine who has the authority to hire the person you’re interested in, and then speak with that person face-to-face as often as possible, using various techniques to strengthen your relationship. Specific tactics for implementing this strategy will be addressed in later chapters.
The Game and Its Odds
The second fundamental principle of aggressive job searching is «It’s not a dirty word.» Most people feel insecure to some degree, but insecurity is magnified in high-pressure situations like job hunting. Being rejected by an employer further intensifies insecurity, especially when the «no’s» outnumber the «yes’s,» which will always happen.
After a series of «no’s,» the average candidate will begin to take the rejection personally and look for the easy way out of the process:
(1) accept the first job offer they receive, regardless of their qualifications;
(2) abandon the job search altogether;
or (3) continue looking for a job by taking the path of least resistance, relying primarily on their resume, since rejection on paper is easier to manage. Each of these alternatives drastically reduces the candidate’s effectiveness and their chances of achieving maximum job satisfaction.
The key to a successful job search is not to take each «no» personally,
but to recognize that you are playing a game. The game is called «yeses and nos.» The odds are such that a «no» is always the most likely outcome and should never come as a surprise.
One of the rules of the game is that you will always get a «yes» after a certain number of «nos.» Furthermore, it is usually possible to roughly predict when the next «yes» will occur simply by observing the number of «nos» received to date and recognizing, based on past performance, when the next one is due.
Furthermore, as you improve at the game, you can learn to reduce the number of «no’s» between each «yes.» You can learn to change a «no» to a «maybe» and a «maybe» to a «yes.» So «no» isn’t a bad word; it’s just a temporary condition in a game, and every «no» brings you one step closer to a «yes.»
Simply recognizing and overcoming the fear of rejection will make the average job seeker far more aggressive, enthusiastic, and effective.
Be Aggressive
Aggressive job searching has been scientifically proven to be superior to the traditional approach. A group of aggressive job seekers was compared to a group of traditional job seekers over a three-month period.
Approximately 60% of the traditional job seekers successfully found new jobs during the trial period,
while over 90% of the aggressive group found work during the same period, and they found better jobs, found them faster, and earned higher average starting salaries. Aggressive job seekers relied on the principles outlined above, but they only used a portion of the techniques I will describe. Therefore, the actual difference in effectiveness may be even greater.
However, the strongest evidence that aggressive job searching is more effective is that headhunters—professional recruiters who only get paid when they succeed—use the techniques described in this book to the benefit of their clients. The more successful a headhunter is, the more innovative and unconventional they generally become, and the less they rely on the resume.
It’s worth mentioning a few examples from my own recruiting experience.
In the first chapter, I described a man who had relied on his resume unsuccessfully for over a year and landed a job in just four days after applying aggressive techniques. In another case, a senior executive had been interviewing on his own for several weeks without success. After doing some research, I found him a $55,000 job with a single phone call.
On another occasion, I hired a young man with only one year of experience and coached him to outperform someone with ten years of experience and land a management position. Most recently, I helped a 62-year-old man secure a job with a lucrative salary and bonuses after numerous companies rejected him because of his age.
I’m sure other recruiters can cite similar, or even more dramatic, successes.
The key in most cases is to be aggressive and not follow the traditional rules. Don’t look for your dream job in job ads. Don’t mail your resume to prospective employers. Don’t apply to HR departments. Don’t wait for employers to come looking for you.
George Bernard Shaw put it clearly: “Those who succeed in this world are those who get up and look for the circumstances they desire, and if they cannot find them, they create them.” This is the motto of aggressive job hunting.
“But I’m qualified for that position, so why was I rejected?”
The following contribution comes from the Ask a Manager portal, which is defined as follows by its founder, Alison Green: When I started this blog, I was the head of people at a successful non-profit organization, where I was responsible for hiring, firing, promoting, managing, etc. Now I work as a consultant on the same topics I write about here.
I’m not a perfect manager. I’ve made countless mistakes, which I’ve then obsessively reflected on, and I definitely don’t have all the answers.
Author: Alison Green
There’s an interesting discussion on Evil HR Lady about whether it’s okay to ask for feedback when you don’t get a job. Many people point out in the comments section that when they agree to give feedback to rejected candidates, they inevitably end up with the candidate trying to convince them that the feedback is wrong and that they should get the job. (I think it’s great that candidates ask for feedback, but precisely for that reason, I’ll only give it by email and not by phone; I don’t want to get caught up in that conversation.)
Anyway, it got me thinking about how often candidates are convinced they’re right for the job and are bewildered when they don’t receive an offer. Sometimes they even become aggressive and hostile, but that’s another story. There are all sorts of reasons why you might not be chosen for the position, regardless of how qualified you think you are, including:
- Your qualifications aren’t as strong as you think. Your assessment of your skills doesn’t match the reality of the situation.
- Your qualifications are very strong, but others’ are too. (It’s funny how often candidates, surprised at not getting the job, overlook this possibility, which is one of the most common.)
- You don’t fully understand what the job entails, and therefore your opinion of whether you’re the right candidate is based on a flawed premise. This is surprisingly common. For example, today I had a phone interview with a man who had truly impressive business experience and kept citing examples of it, but the position he was applying for wouldn’t make much use of those skills. He picked out a couple of minor aspects of the job description and focused on them, overlooking the bigger picture (which is that the position is much more administrative than he thought).
- You’re well-qualified, but you have some other characteristic that would cause you major problems, such as an inability to listen without interrupting, trouble answering questions clearly, or a hostility issue. I’m not going to knowingly put someone in a position where they’re likely to struggle, for both the manager’s and the candidate’s sake.
So don’t be surprised or upset if you don’t get the job you thought was perfect for you. After all, the hiring manager probably knows better than you who will thrive in the role. That’s a good thing, because you don’t want a job where you don’t excel.
- You’re well-qualified, but you have some other characteristic that would cause you major problems, such as an inability to listen without interrupting, difficulty answering questions clearly, or a hostility issue.
Of course, mistakes happen when hiring,
but in general, it’s wise to respect the opinions of those who work there, who know the job requirements inside and out and know better than you whether you’re the ideal candidate for this position, with this manager, in this culture, and at this company.
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t ask for feedback. Just make sure you ask sincerely, not to try to defend your position.
This year’s scariest word for workers, from Washington, D.C. to Silicon Valley
The following contribution comes from the Business Insider website, which defines itself as follows: Business Insider is a leading global news brand, recognized for its coverage of business, technology, and innovation, helping millions of readers get the most out of their careers and lives through award-winning journalism.
Our journey began in 2007, when we burst onto the scene as Silicon Alley Insider. Two years later, we adopted the name Business Insider. We were pioneers, revealing the true story of Facebook’s founding, demystifying the 2008 financial crisis for our readers, and profiling the visionaries who built some of today’s largest tech companies. We covered the startups and the people that mattered to our audience, even if we occasionally stirred things up. We showed the world that business journalism could be visual and entertaining.
This article is by Allie Kelly, a reporter.
Tech leaders like Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk spearheaded a crusade for workplace efficiency in 2025.
The «efficiency» mantra has fueled layoffs and hiring freezes in the 2025 job market.
Companies hope the cuts will save them money, but workers are worried about their livelihoods.
From Big Tech to the federal workforce, bureaucracy has fallen out of favor.
It’s CEOs’ favorite buzzword and office workers’ nightmare.
«Efficiency» defined the 2025 job market, from the federal government to Silicon Valley. For business and political leaders, it has become a catch-all term indicating they are betting on AI, optimizing their workforce, and increasing productivity. A leaner bureaucracy is in vogue, and increased shareholder value was the year’s hottest trend.
But reading the word in a company memo has employees bracing for layoffs.
With high interest rates, persistent inflation, and rising tariff costs, companies are looking for ways to balance their budgets, leading to a wave of layoffs at companies like Dell, AT&T, Verizon, and more.
The White House Department of Government Efficiency launched a restructuring of the government workforce, a particularly stark example of the drive for efficiency in the private sector.
Meanwhile, chatbots are becoming increasingly adept at coding, writing, and basic administrative tasks. This is culminating in precarious job security and a widespread hiring freeze, especially among college-educated office workers.
Over the past twelve months, Business Insider has listened to job seekers,
workers of all ages, business leaders, and HR professionals to understand how the mantra of «efficiency» is transforming the job landscape and the living conditions of employees. Some told us they are excited to learn new skills, while others feel it’s impossible to keep up with the rapidly changing expectations. «I had this degree—and that’s a privilege, not everyone has that opportunity—but it didn’t matter,» said Jacqueline Kline, a recent college graduate who applied to hundreds of jobs without getting a single one. «My GPA didn’t matter.» None of that mattered if you didn’t have a job.
How «Efficiency» Became the North Star in the Private Sector
By 2025, the rhetoric of efficiency in American companies has shifted from a business value to a religion.
CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Andy Jassy of Amazon, and Sundar Pichai of Google, among others, have been at the forefront of the «Great Flattening,» which involves simplifying organizational charts and eliminating management levels. The bet is that the use of AI and less internal bureaucracy will translate into greater profits. This trend has led to widespread reductions in early career and middle management positions, partly to offset overhiring at the height of the pandemic. This comes amid a slowing economy and a frustrated workforce.
«There are so many people applying for jobs, and there are only so many positions available,» said Charley Kim, a twenty-something who landed a job at a large tech company after a long search. He added, «Getting an interview is probably harder than the interviews themselves.»
The stagnation of the workforce, driven by efficiency, isn’t limited to the tech sector:
airlines, financial institutions, major retailers, and media companies laid off thousands of workers this year, many of them in office positions.
This is also beginning to show up in the data. Long-term unemployment rates are rising as turnover rates decline, meaning companies are hiring less, while workers who have jobs are hesitant to change careers. Unemployment and layoff rates remain relatively low, although in the United States, substantial job growth is only seen in the healthcare and construction sectors. Indicators of employee confidence suggest that they feel less secure in their jobs—that is, if they can get a job at all.
«My dream job might exist,» Isabella Clemmens said around her college graduation in May. «But I’m one of only 400 people who apply.» DOGE stoked the fire of efficiency, but workers aren’t convinced.
Shortly after President Donald Trump took office in January, the Office of Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk,
began cutting thousands of federal employees across various agencies, citing the need to reduce spending and red tape.
Employment reports show that 265,000 government employees have left their jobs this year. The staff reductions have continued throughout the year, even after Musk’s departure, the dissolution of DOGE, and court injunctions blocking some layoffs.
The DOGE cuts were part of a broader call for efficiency by Musk.
He sent federal workers his infamous «5 things» email, in which he asked government employees to regularly document their tasks and productivity. Any «failure to respond will be considered a resignation,» he stated. The email followed Trump’s instructions to «be more aggressive» in reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy.
It may be too early to tell whether the efficiency campaigns in the public and private sectors are paying off. The economic outlook for the American business world still seems bleak; «tariffs,» «uncertainty,» and «inflation» are among the most frequently used terms by executives in company earnings presentations, along with frequent mentions of an AI bubble.
A McKinsey report published in June shows that nearly eight out of ten companies use generative AI,
and most do not report a significant impact on their bottom line.
This bet on efficiency may save some companies in the long run, although lower interest rates will likely make a more tangible difference. Even Musk himself stated that DOGE had «some» success, but that he wouldn’t do it again.
For workers, the job search process has never been less efficient. They still need to pay the bills.
«What I look for in a job has become much broader in this process,» said Abbey Owens while job hunting last summer. «At first it was very specific, but over time it’s become, ‘I’ll take almost anything.'»
The Frozen Labor Market: Why Hiring, Firing, and Resignations Have Stalled
The following contribution comes from the PPAI portal, which defines itself as: the voice and driving force for the advancement of the industry.Our vision is for promotional products to be universally valued and essential to all brands. The Promotional Products Association International (PPAI) has worked to unite and promote our market, serving the member community as its most loyal advocate since 1903.
As the industry’s largest nonprofit trade association, we rely on 15,000 member companies to create solutions, provide resources, share information, and lead.
Author: Claudia St. John, SPHR (Senior Professional in Human Resources). St. John is the founder and CEO of The Workplace Advisors, a company specializing in providing HR support to associations like PPAI and its member companies. To learn more, visit www.theworkplaceadvisors.com.
The labor market isn’t booming or busting; it’s frozen, leaving companies and workers stuck and forcing leaders to rethink everything they know about hiring, retention, and growth.
Home • PPAI Media • The Frozen Job Market: Why Hiring, Layoffs, and Resignations Have Stalled
Spotting Early Indicators
At The Workplace Advisors, we often spot early indicators of changes in the business and economic climate.
Our strategic position, working closely with organizations across different sectors and geographies, gives us a unique perspective on labor market fluctuations. In the past, we could reliably anticipate these fluctuations. When the economy was poised for growth, clients called on us to accelerate hiring and prepare for expansion; when a recession loomed, they sought our help with layoffs or salary adjustments.
But the trend we are witnessing now is unique and is likely impacting your business as well.
From the Great Resignation to the Great Freeze
The COVID-19 pandemic unleashed a turbulent period in the job market.
In 2021, the US experienced the «Great Quit,» with over 25% of the workforce (approximately 40 million people) quitting their jobs. Yes, you read that right: a quarter of the American workforce quit their jobs in a single year! Companies scrambled to fill positions and retain talent, which boosted wages and, for a time, profitability. As the cycle continued, those wage increases fueled higher consumer spending, leading to higher prices and, ultimately, inflation.
To combat inflation, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates, making borrowing and investment more expensive for businesses. Traditionally, this would trigger a familiar cycle: companies would cut hiring, and layoffs would follow, pushing the economy into recession. However, this time, something different happened.
A New Kind of Stagnation
While companies slowed hiring and reduced investment, they stopped short of mass layoffs. The unemployment rate in the United States, which soared into double digits after the Great Recession of 2008-2009, has remained remarkably low, hovering around 4% since the start of the pandemic.
Although profitability declined and financing costs increased in 2023 and 2024, layoffs have remained at historic lows.
The Reluctance to Lay Off
Why? Because employers, scared by the difficulty of hiring during the post-pandemic boom, are reluctant to lay off workers they might need again soon.
I’ve seen it firsthand. During my keynote speeches to business leaders across all sectors, I often ask three questions:
How many of you have had difficulty filling key positions? Most people stand up.
Have you had to raise salaries to hire or retain employees? Again, most people stand up.
Are you planning layoffs? Almost no one stands up. Virtually no one.
Baby Boomers Are Retiring
This pattern is repeated across all sectors. The reason is structural: The American workforce is shrinking as baby boomers retire, and we aren’t adding enough new workers to replace them. Immigration hasn’t filled the gap, and younger generations are smaller. The result is a labor market where vacancies persist, but both hiring and resignations have slowed dramatically.
The «Frozen» Labor Market Defined
What we are seeing now is a «frozen» or «locked» labor market.
Hiring has stalled, voluntary resignations have plummeted, and layoffs remain infrequent. Companies are retaining their employees, even if business is slow, because the risk of not being able to rehire them is too high.
Meanwhile, workers are staying put, wary of making a change in an uncertain environment. This freeze is blocking the normal flow of opportunities: entry-level workers cannot join the workforce, experienced employees cannot advance, and burned-out staff feel stuck.
Companies are retaining their employees, even if business is slow, because the risk of not being able to rehire them is too high.
Furthermore, President Donald Trump’s recent policy changes, including new tariffs and changes to immigration enforcement, have only exacerbated uncertainty for businesses, leading many to adopt a “wait and see” approach rather than take bold action. As a result, job openings remain unfilled for months, and interviews drag on with no clear end in sight. For job seekers, especially recent graduates, this means longer searches and fewer opportunities.
Why should you care?
This frozen job market has far-reaching implications for business owners, managers, and employees. For example: The talent shortage is here to stay: With slowing workforce growth and accelerating retirements, competition for skilled workers is expected to remain fierce for the foreseeable future. If you lose a good employee, replacing them can be much more difficult than before.
The danger of overburdening staff
Freezing hiring can backfire: While pausing hiring may seem prudent, it can overburden existing staff, increase burnout, and erode morale. Employees may feel overworked and undervalued, which can lead to disengagement or quiet resignation.
Innovation and growth can suffer: When workforce mobility stagnates, so does the flow of new ideas and skills. This can slow innovation and make it harder for your company to adapt to changing markets.
Job searches take longer: Employers are finding that the average job search has stretched to six months or more, and career changers are proceeding cautiously in uncertain times.
What should you do?
If you’re a business leader, now is the time to rethink your talent strategy. Don’t assume the job market will «thaw» anytime soon or that old hiring patterns will return. We recommend the following:
Start thinking strategically about your workforce.
Now is not the time to shift from a proactive to a reactive approach to your long-term workforce strategy. Focus on retaining your best employees, investing in their growth, and creating a work culture that values flexibility, learning, and well-being.
Don’t postpone hiring talent.
Filling key positions will take longer than anticipated. And once the market shifts, you’ll face stiff competition and have to pay more for the people you want to hire.
In case you missed it: Low Turnover, Lots of Mischief: SnugZ USA’s Secrets to Employee Retention.
Consider expanding your recruiting efforts to include underrepresented groups, veterans, or those seeking non-traditional work arrangements. Now is an excellent time to hire entry-level talent as a long-term investment. Train them on how you want things done and allow them to grow within the company, giving them the freedom to challenge current practices. This can help companies consider new and more effective ways of doing things.
Embrace technology and automation to free up your team to do higher-value work, but remember that people—skilled, motivated, and engaged—remain your most valuable asset.
The frozen labor market isn’t just a passing phase; it’s a sign of deeper demographic and economic shifts. By understanding what’s happening and responding strategically with creativity and flexibility, you can navigate this new reality and thrive. At The Workplace Advisors, we’re here to help, from strategy development to execution and every step in between.
The Generation Z Job Crisis Deepens as AI Revolutionizes Entry-Level Jobs
The following contribution comes from HR Digest, which describes itself as an international magazine that considers human resources to be the corporate function with the greatest potential. For our readers, it is an intellectual selection that drives the global debate on the most important people and ideas.
The article is by Anuradha Mukherjee, a member of the team.
Employee Benefits
Featured
Trends
Graduating from university and entering adulthood should be a pivotal moment in a young graduate’s life, but in 2025, it’s the first step toward months of hardship. The Generation Z job crisis is not of their own making, but rather the result of a hostile job market for these young workers. There is a clear shortage of entry-level jobs, largely because AI is revolutionizing career paths and making it harder for workers to enter the workforce.
Many Gen Z workers find themselves unemployed months after graduating,
as the administrative job market no longer accepts applications. Some Gen Zers are turning to manual labor to try to find their place, but this requires a significant investment in different skills and education. The Gen Z job crisis is intensifying in various ways, creating barriers in many career paths.
Gen Z Job Crisis
The job market is becoming increasingly hostile to Gen Z workers, creating barriers where none exist. (Image: Pexels)
The Gen Z job crisis must be addressed immediately. Finding the perfect job is a difficult task for most, but by 2025, finding any job will be more difficult than it should be. This is particularly challenging for Gen Z newcomers, many of whom only have a college degree and little to no experience with the requirements of their positions. Previously, graduates could find entry-level positions and develop their skills and experience on the job, but this has changed in recent years.
Generation Z is often seen as unprofessional and demanding workers who lack the skills needed to thrive in the workplace, but these workers have never received the necessary training to excel in a corporate environment. Universities aren’t necessarily preparing them in workplace etiquette, and we’ve suddenly gone from the relaxed corporate atmosphere that was fashionable a few years ago to an excessively formal one.
Millennials are no longer getting the promotions they deserve, and Generation X workers aren’t leaving the workforce, resulting in fewer lower-level positions available.
Companies have also stopped actively hiring, opting instead to lay off employees. This has led to more workers staying in their jobs rather than looking for other opportunities, thus freeing up space for younger people. With a lack of funding for research and social services, these alternative career paths have also been blocked. However you look at it, these Generation Z workers have faced every possible obstacle.
There’s a shortage of entry-level positions, and AI is playing a significant role.
The Generation Z job crisis can be attributed to various factors, but one of the most worrying is the relationship between entry-level positions and AI disruption. With the advent of AI technology, many of the minor workplace tasks previously performed by inexperienced workers are now being carried out by these tools.
Previously, a candidate seeking a career in HR could help with paperwork and basic administrative tasks while learning the ropes, but now we have the technology to do it. Previously, a young tech worker could write some of the basic code for their new job, but AI can do that too. Where a Generation Z worker could once help, there is now an AI tool to manage everything.
Employers, who were already hesitant to hire Generation Z, are turning to these AI tools instead of relying on young people.
LinkedIn’s Director of Economic Opportunities, Aneesh Raman, explained:
«While the tech sector is feeling the first waves of change, reflecting the massive adoption of AI in this field, the erosion of traditional entry-level roles is also expected in sectors such as finance, travel, food, and professional services.»
The problem is widespread.
AI-ready careers are Generation Z’s best bet.
AI is transforming careers, that’s a fact, but it could also be the solution to Generation Z’s job crisis. As tech-savvy digital natives who learn their roles more easily than their predecessors, becoming AI experts may improve their employability. The current transition to AI has been extremely rushed, and organizations don’t know how to use the tools once the investments have been made.
Generation Z with AI-related job skills could be best suited
to help their employers bridge the skills gap, becoming indispensable in the job market. This skill set isn’t exclusive to those working exclusively in the tech industry. Whether you want to work in administration or advertising, there are ways to understand and utilize AI. By 2025, AI will not only replace workers, but also the workers who are most adept at using AI tools.
The Generation Z job market prioritizes skills over qualifications. AI’s disruption of entry-level jobs means these positions have largely disappeared. However, those looking to advance their careers will need to look beyond their university degrees to understand the needs of their industries. Many employers are eliminating degree requirements for specific positions, and the growing popularity of hands-on work suggests that university is no longer considered the best path to career advancement.
Before Generation Z finds work, they’ll need to explore alternative ways to better showcase their skills and present themselves as candidates who bring experience and perspective. The shift toward skills-based hiring isn’t a bad thing, but it’s important to start highlighting your abilities in every way possible.
It’s time to build your professional identity from the start.
An entrepreneurial spirit has always been one of Generation Z’s best qualities, and this is relevant for finding employment in 2025. Many artists have secured sponsorships and brand deals not by holding gallery exhibitions, but by making their niche styles appealing to brands on social media. Others have used their tech expertise to show companies how they can help them, proving to be profitable investments. It’s true that finding an entry-level job shouldn’t involve so many tests or expectations, especially considering the low salaries these positions offer, but that’s the current job market. However bleak the outlook may seem, Generation Z needs to look out for themselves, as employers no longer prioritize employee growth.
Generation Z must actively create career paths that don’t currently exist and become ambassadors for these roles. Despite the many uncertainties of the modern world, those who best understand their own strengths and weaknesses and develop the skills they already possess will find work.
Don’t be paranoid: Workplaces are becoming more toxic.
The following contribution comes from Inc.com, one of the most prestigious media outlets covering business, leadership, new technologies, human resources, etc.
It is written by Kit Eaton, who describes himself as follows: I cover science, technology, and generally exciting and innovative topics for Inc. and Fast Company. Follow me on Twitter or Google+ and I assure you that you will discover many interesting things. I also have a PhD and have worked as a professional scientist and theater technician… luckily, I avoided jobs as a bodyguard and chicken coop cleaner (bonus points if you get the reference!).
According to a new survey, hostility at work is on the rise and is prompting workers to change jobs.
Sometimes, when it seems like the world is going to hell, work remains a safe and stable space in your life: a refuge of routines, calm and orderly schedules, and simple friendships.
Although that may not be the case, according to a new survey by leading employment agency Express Employment Professionals and market research firm Harris Poll,
their new survey shows a «worrying increase in toxic workplace behaviors» across the United States, with respondents revealing that their company’s employees are far more conflictive than they were just three years ago.
The research surveyed 1,001 hiring decision-makers in the U.S. and 1,039 job seekers aged 18 and over. Some of its findings could be unsettling for business leaders and human resources teams nationwide. Around 30% of employed job seekers (people who have a job but are actively looking for new employment) said there are now more confrontations at work than there were three years ago. That’s a significant proportion of the workforce, with results slightly skewed toward male respondents: 34% felt this way, compared to 23% of female job seekers.
But the data is worse: more than one in five employed job seekers reported seeing an increase in the number of colleagues who were «mean» to others at work over the past year.
Many factors may contribute to this perception, such as last year’s contentious election cycle, but the new survey suggests that disgruntled workers partly blame their companies’ management.
Fifty-four percent of job seekers said they believe company culture should adapt to changing times, rather than forcing staff to conform to the existing culture. This view is much stronger among female employees (59%) than among male employees (49%). Part of this perception stems from employers’ attitudes toward boundaries: 55% of surveyed job seekers agreed that it was «inappropriate» for managers to demand similar boundaries from colleagues as they would from family and friends—people with whom one might naturally have greater tolerance when misbehavior occurs. This may be partly driving the growing sense of hostility in the workplace: 57% of respondents said it was difficult to distinguish between a hostile work environment and a simple clash of personalities between colleagues.
The data comes amid deep political hostility toward DEI practices, mass layoffs across numerous sectors and government offices, and the forceful, even brutal, way in which Elon Musk’s DOGE team is cutting jobs and implementing anti-DEI policies, including reportedly removing a sign from an employee’s desk reminding workers to be kind to everyone. This contradicts Harris’s new data, which revealed that 62% of job seekers felt companies should have signs to “remind people to be kind to each other.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, this sentiment varied significantly by generation: 78% of Gen Z job seekers felt this way, compared to 64% of Millennials and 56% of Gen X. Only 44% of Baby Boomers or older job seekers agreed. If your company is experiencing a rise in employee complaints about toxicity, it might be time to take note: data from a new survey suggests your employees may be blaming your outdated work culture, which could be driving them to look for jobs elsewhere. Improving emotions at work can reduce the risk of depression, and recruitment experts recommend that addressing these issues—by boosting employee confidence and overall productivity—starts with decisions made by senior management.
Explore an interesting founder-led company each day to discover how its strategy works and what risk factors it faces.
Employees Seek New Jobs Amid Workplace Hostility
The following contribution comes from the portal of Group C Media, Inc., a B2B media company covering the commercial real estate, facilities management, landscaping, and business continuity markets. It encompasses the full lifecycle of corporate and institutional facilities, as well as lawn care and landscaping, through national magazines, events, and online communities.
Our clients need to find ways to inform their target audience about their products and services. We connect buyers and sellers through market-leading content, using a multi-platform approach to deliver the latest solutions to executives in the industries we serve.
Authorship by the team.
Addressing toxic behaviors in the workplace is crucial for organizations seeking to attract and retain top talent.
Nearly a third (30%) of employed U.S. job seekers
report that their company’s employees are more confrontational than they were three years ago, according to a recent Express Employment Professionals-Harris Poll survey.
This trend is especially pronounced among male job seekers, with 34% observing an increase in hostility in the workplace, compared to 23% of female job seekers.
Furthermore, more than one in five employed job seekers (22%) have observed an increase in aggressive employee behavior toward others at work over the past year.
This rise in toxic behavior not only damages workplace relationships
but also undermines the overall company culture, prompting many employees to seek new job opportunities.
This alarming increase in toxic workplace behavior underscores the need for organizations to take immediate action to prevent their employees from becoming job seekers due to workplace hostility. Hostility at Work
Several personal accounts from respondents reveal the specific toxic behaviors they have experienced: “I remember when some workers physically assaulted each other because one of them made offensive and disrespectful comments about another’s personal life. It created a hostile environment and affected everyone on the team.” — 36-year-old male, employed and job seeker
“I had a coworker who constantly tried to force me to perform tasks that weren’t in my job description and actively tried to sabotage my work. I reported her to management several times, but they did nothing about it until I had to resign due to caring for my parents and my declining mental health.” — Unemployed woman, 30, job seeker
“When I worked as a registered nurse in a hospital unit, I was bullied by more experienced nurses toward the younger ones. They were envious because they didn’t have the same qualifications as the recent graduates. When I started showing signs of mental health problems, I was also targeted by others.” — Employed woman, 59, job seeker
Corporate Culture: Addressing Workplace Hostility
The findings underscore the importance of corporate culture in addressing toxic behaviors. More than half of job seekers (54%) believe that company culture should adapt to changing times and employee desires, rather than expecting employees to adapt to the existing culture. This view is stronger among female job seekers (59%) than among male job seekers (49%).
Furthermore, 55% of job seekers agree that it is inappropriate for employees to demand the same boundaries from their coworkers that they set with their family and friends. Nearly three in five (57%) have difficulty distinguishing between a hostile work environment and a clash of personalities among colleagues in today’s workplace.
Hiring Managers’ Perspective
Hiring managers also report a worrying increase in toxic behavior. Half of hiring managers in the U.S. (50%) have observed more instances of employee misconduct than they did three years ago. Nearly three-quarters (74%) have regularly witnessed toxic behavior, with gossip (39%) being the most common, followed by unprofessional communication (27%), avoidance of collaboration (24%), micromanaging direct reports (19%), and taking credit for others’ work (19%).
“One employee constantly gossiped about colleagues, spreading negativity and undermining team morale, which created unnecessary tension and damaged trust in the workplace.” — Hiring Manager, 44
“During a team meeting, one employee repeatedly interrupted others to push their own ideas, ignoring everyone else’s input. They made dismissive comments like, ‘That’s not going to work,’ without offering constructive alternatives.” — Hiring Manager, 36
“One employee sent inappropriate text messages and threats.” — Hiring Manager, 26 years old
A Proactive Approach
While 84% of employed job seekers say their company has measures in place to manage conflict, many say more proactive approaches are needed. These include:
Providing conflict resolution resources: 53%
Encouraging open communication with supervisors: 52%
Mandating training on appropriate workplace behavior: 36%
Displaying signs or other materials about appropriate workplace behavior: 27%
Workplace Hostility
Additionally, 62% of job seekers agree that companies should have signs reminding people to be kind to one another.
This view is especially strong among Gen Z, Millennial, and Gen X workers (78%, 64%, and 56%, respectively), compared to Baby Boomer/Senior job seekers (44%).
“Addressing toxic workplace behaviors is crucial for companies seeking to attract and retain top talent,” said Bill Stoller, CEO of Express Employment International. A toxic environment not only drives away employees but also damages a company’s reputation, making it harder to recruit qualified professionals. By fostering a positive and respectful work culture, companies can increase their attractiveness to skilled professionals, reduce employee turnover, and strengthen their market position.
Why Some Workers Are Stuck in Employment Limbo
The following article is from the BBC website and was written by Alex Christian, the features correspondent.
The current wave of layoffs has left a large number of employees without work. However, those in certain roles could face a particularly uncertain future.
The mass layoffs of the past year have affected many job roles across all sectors. However, workers in certain careers, such as recruitment, have felt the impact especially hard.
As companies have drastically cut their marketing and advertising budgets and frozen hiring, employees in these roles have been laid off in large numbers, particularly in the tech sector. On September 14, Google announced it would be cutting hundreds of recruitment jobs globally, citing a reduced need for them within the company.
But not only are many of these workers out of work in the short term, experts say they could also face long-term job market uncertainty as organizations generally cut back on the resources supporting these positions.
For the workers hardest hit by the recent waves of layoffs, a new full-time job might not be imminent. In a slowing job market, especially in their roles, their options are to apply for as many openings as possible, take any available freelance work, retrain and change careers, or simply endure the job market limbo for as long as they can.
“One of the toughest moments of my career”
Christine was one of thousands of recruiters laid off by a large tech company in early 2023.
Based in San Francisco, her organization announced a hiring freeze, which meant the team she led was downsized. “We had been hearing rumors for so long that it was shocking, but not that shocking,” she says. After being laid off, Christine decided to take a break and didn’t start looking for work until April. “I was exhausted; I needed time for myself,” she explains. “We were in a hiring frenzy during the pandemic, and it was draining. And I wanted to ride out the crisis a bit: there were so many layoffs in the industry that I knew it didn’t make sense to go back to work right away.”
Since then, however, as Christine began her serious job search, she has struggled to find a new full-time position in a depressed market. “I’ve had to shift my perspective on where I’ll work next,” she says. “Instead of a well-known company, I’m leaning more towards startups. But I stopped applying after a while—I just kept getting rejection after rejection.” Former colleagues were applying to hundreds of jobs and not getting interviews unless they knew someone there, so I thought, “Why bother?” – Christine
At the height of her job search, Christine was sending out five applications and receiving two rejections every day.
She says there has been a shortage of recruiting positions, especially in management roles. “I applied for freelance positions and the response was that I was overqualified. After a while, I stopped reading the rejection emails; it seemed like a waste of time.”
This is problematic for workers who need to earn an income, especially with the rising cost of living.
However, says Connie Wanberg, a professor at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota, these workers also face greater overall job insecurity: layoffs mean that, along with increased competition for positions, there is less demand for their services in the labor market. This is especially true for recruiters, she says: as organizations pause hiring or cut positions, the need for talent decreases.
Furthermore, even if these workers find new positions in an uncertain economy, there’s no guarantee they’ll get a job as good as their previous one. «Those who end up in lower-paying jobs, with commutes or a less favorable work culture, may be forced to continue looking for work for the foreseeable future.»
In addition to the practical difficulties, Wanberg says all of this adds to the reality that these workers may also face «a greater risk of lower long-term well-being.» And while most laid-off workers recover from the psychological trauma and anxiety of losing their jobs, she says, their progress depends on their long-term changes.
In a slowing job market, job seekers can apply for vacancies, retrain, or try to navigate the uncertainty of the labor market as best they can.
«My layoff was a springboard for changing my working life.»
As a result of these labor market conditions, many of these workers facing job insecurity have had to change their plans to find another full-time position.
«My layoff was a springboard for changing my working life.» Instead of spending her days researching and applying for jobs, Christine, in her 40s, decided to take a break and change course: in addition to securing freelance contracts, she began accepting commissions for her artwork. “My former colleagues were applying to hundreds of jobs and not getting interviews unless they knew someone there, so I thought, ‘Why bother?’ I’d rather be able to paint and earn money from my work, rather than just playing the numbers game, applying to as many vacancies as possible.”
Similarly, May, 38, who lives in the UK, had been in her PR and communications management role at a tech company in London for over 10 years when she was laid off in February. She was let go due to budget cuts following the 2022 tech slowdown. “I was mentally prepared for the news,” she explains.
Instead of immediately looking for a new full-time position, May also gave up job hunting and became self-employed. “I had worked full-time my entire career, so I was ready for a change and to try something different from being an employee again,” she says. “The idea had been on my mind for a while before I found out I was laid off. But I took it as the push I needed: I had enough savings to give it a shot.”
As the months passed, May began to restructure her work schedule, gradually acquiring a diverse clientele as she built her own business. She adds that the market slowdown hasn’t significantly impacted her work: she receives commissions from professional contacts and friends of friends.
May says she has embraced the uncertainty of the job market:
After 15 years of full-time employment, being laid off gave her the opportunity to rethink her career and recalibrate her work-life balance. “I knew there wouldn’t be many other opportunities in my career to start my own business. My layoff became a springboard for changing my work life.”
I knew there wouldn’t be many other opportunities in my career to start my own business. My layoff became the springboard for changing my work life – May
Wanberg adds that taking a break, as May and Christine have done, is common among laid-off workers.
She says it can offer benefits, especially in a turbulent job market. “Job hunting in general is detrimental to mental health because it’s a discouraging process: you receive a lot of rejections and can start to doubt yourself. In contrast, taking a break not only improves mental health, but people tend to end up in positions they are more satisfied with because they have spent more time thinking about what they want next.”
“I’ve never had so much trouble finding a job.”
In the future, there may not be as many opportunities, or at least not enough, for all workers in certain job roles to find another full-time position. “The reality is that the largest number of vacancies are in sectors like manual labor,” says Wanberg. “We now have sectors of the economy where there is a severe talent shortage and others where there is a talent surplus.”
In the last two weeks, Christine has noticed an increase in vacancies. But even though she is currently interviewing for a recruitment position, she says she is still struggling. “It has been one of the most difficult times of my career,” she says. “I’ve never had so much trouble finding a job.” For now, taking a different approach to employment may be one of the only alternatives for these workers stuck in purgatory. May says that, for now, she’s content to work as a freelancer.
Christine expects to return to full-time employment soon, as some companies start adding new positions, but with a different mindset. “I’ll probably go ahead with more cynicism,” she says. “I’ve never been one to get swept up in corporate Kool-Aid, but right now I consider it normal: it could affect my trust in an employer in the future.”
Both Christine and May are withholding their last names for professional reasons.