Incidents or WHAT HAS HAPPENED?

This section illustrates the appearance of discrimination on the basis of age, using real cases. The cases mentioned do not necessarily exactly mirror the actual lawsuits, as they may be simplified for sake of clarity. The discrimination they involve was not always proved in court, and some cases did not reach trial. The cases given are used as examples for thought and contemplation on various forms of discrimination. The real lawsuits with precise descriptions and verdicts can be found in the section called Judikatúra (Jurisdiction).

• Sclerosis multiplex

The treatment of Sclerosis multiplex by some effective drugs (interferons, natalizumab) in Slovakia is age-limited based on a directive from the Ministry of Health (MH). Only those patients diagnosed with the illness prior to age 45 can receive treatment. This is justified by expert opinions claiming the treatment is most effective for those under 45 years. Another justification is the statement from the MH that the treatment of sclerosis multiplex is very expensive and therefore it is provided only to those with a chance of recovering. However, even in the case where people over 45 may not recover fully, the treatment will undoubtedly better their quality of life and slow the progress of the illness. According to medical statistics, 25 % of patients are diagnosed with the illness after age 45.

Since April 2008 a new directive has applied, that patients who had fallen ill before they were 45, the treatment will not be terminated, as it was before. However will still not be initiated in patients who are older than 45. This kind of directive enacting an age limit that blocks patients from receiving treatment is discriminatory. Treatment should not be subject to the age of a person more than the results of medical examination conducted by doctors who based on it decide recommending (or not) initiation or continuance of treatment. When deciding on treatment, a directive regarding patient's age should not override a doctor's recommendation based on the results of medical examination.

• Factory redundancy

Forced to make layoffs in textile factory X, located in economically neglected region Y (where there is difficulty finding job placement), management decided to first lay off those laborers over 45. The older women made redundant actually showed a better work history (less absence, better task management, long-term experience working for firm and practice in specific type of work) than their younger colleagues. It is reasonable to assume that the decision was discriminatory. Factory administration made redundant a group of employees simply because they were soon approaching retirement age.

• Professor out of work

One professor of philology used to work in the State Pedagogic Institute. When she turned 47, she was made a generous offer, earning a foreign stipend for writing a book. Her stay abroad was originally planned to last one year but she was required to extend it for another year and a half. In the meanwhile, her home institute was reducing a number of employees and because she stayed abroad at the time, her boss asked her to terminate her employment upon agreement. Though she had consented, when she returned she found it impossible to be employed again. Applying for opportunities consistent with her qualification and experience, she was repeatedly ignored and passed over by younger candidates, often including her own former students with much less experience. On one occasion, she tried to bid for a contract over the phone, concealing her age. She was accepted right away. However, after she submitted her personal details required for endorsing the contract she never heard from the firm again.