This is our second post in a series on employees' rights when they get laid-off from work.  In our last post, I pointed out that even though an employee may have been "laid-off" with several other employees, that does not necessarily mean they were not wrongfully terminated in being chosen for layoff.  This post deals with the situation where a large group may be "singled out" for wrongful termination.

For example, one of the most prevalent forms of class action employment law claims following a layoff is based on age discrimination.  A company often decides that the best way to cut costs in a layoff is to get rid of those with the most seniority, because they are usually the ones with the highest compensation.

However, California employment laws state that where an employer terminates an employee because of their high compensation relative to other employees, that is proof of age discrimination where the high compensation is a result of that employee's age.

In other situations, the "decider" of who stays and who goes in a layoff may have their own biases (conscious or unconscious) against certain groups of people based on race, gender, national origin or other protected characteristics.

The easiest way to prove this sort of discrimination is through statistics.  I have seen many layoffs where only those over 40 are laid off and then later replaced by new employees fresh out of college.  Similar evidence can be used where a male decision maker only lays off the females because the men have families at home.

Sometimes the only way to tell if this sort of thing is occurring at the time without the benefit of statistics is through anecdotal evidence.  However, under federal employment law if you are part of a mass layoff and over 40 your employer in most cases must provide you with a list of all other employees being laid off, including their ages and position.

This post is part of our ongoing series dealing with "family status" discrimination.  Family status claims implicate several employment laws, depending on the facts of a given case.  For example, the federal Equal Pay Act ("EPA") and also California law mandate "equal pay" between men and women.

The fact that women disproportionately care for children in the United States is likely a direct contributor to the fact that women still tend to make less money for doing the same work, despite the EPA and other laws.  This is because such discrimination is often subtle.

For example, a woman might take time off to care for children and when she returns to work make less money than her male counterparts because they have more "seniority".  While this might be legitimate, "seniority" is sometimes used as a synonym for "loyalty" or "dependability" in reference to the possibility of the woman leaving again to have another child or as punishment for leaving before.

Additionally, mothers who remain in the workforce after having children often start working part-time hours and the other employees often receive a higher rate of pay for "full-time" work.  Reducing a part-time worker's salary is not per se illegal, but there are certainly pitfalls.  For example, if mothers who switch to part-time have their salary reduced, then it still must be comparable to part-time male workers.  Also, if a woman cuts her hours by 50% and her pay is reduced by 70%, then it can be argued she is being "penalized" for working less.

While not always illegal, an employer would likely have to prove that this is the same rate ALL part-time workers have their wages reduced by and/or that there is a legitimate business reason for doing so.

This is our third post in our series on "family status" discrimination. The last post dealt with examples of "moral stereotyping" where an employer's belief on what women should do motivates their discrimination. This post deals with what I call "assumption" stereotyping, which deals with instances where an employer is motivated by their beliefs about what women will do, given their family status.

In these situations, the employer's concerns about how an employee or job applicant's home life could affect their job performance are often valid in theory, but not in application. In cases such as these the employer only assumes that the employee will not be willing or able to do the job and has no reason (other than stereotypical views of women) to make their assumptions.

One common example is where an applicant is not hired because the employer assumes she will not be willing or able to work the long hours the job requires because of her (assumed) duties at home. However, it is quite possible that the husband/father or another family member has taken on some of the childcare duties to allow her to work more. Because this decision relies on the employer's stereotypical assumptions about women, this could constitute illegal discrimination.

It is true that it might be valid in certain cases not to hire an employee because she cannot perform the job due to family responsibilities, but the employer would have to have some actual proof on which to base their decision. For example, if during the interview the employer mentioned the job would require her to work no less than 80 hours per week and the applicant responded that she could not possibly work more than 40 hours with two kids at home, then this could be a valid reason not to hire her.

One oft-cited case of this type is Trezza v. Hartford, Inc., 1998 WL 912101 (S.D.N.Y.). In that case, an attorney was not even considered for a promotion because it would have required extensive travel. Her employers simply assumed that she would not be interested in the position because of her family and promoted a less-qualified man instead.

The employee was also told that once her husband made enough money she would be "sitting at home eating bon bons" and the company's vice president commented on the "incompetence and laziness of working mothers".

This is my second post in our multi-part series on "family status" discrimination, which is becoming more and more common under both federal and state law.

There are many ways family status discrimination can happen in the workplace, some of which are very subtle and difficult to prove. Other types are not subtle at all, such as the topic of today's post, which is what I call "Moral Stereotyping".

Moral Stereotyping Defined

Generally in family status discrimination claims the employer is largely concerned about how the employee's caregiver responsibilities affect them, such as increased absences, less dedication to the job, less focus, unreliability, etc. However. one of the unique aspects of moral stereotyping is that the employer is often more concerned about the well-being of the employee, her child her family or other paternalistic rationale.

Yes, it is true that even in 2008 there are many employers out there who still believe a woman "belongs" at home and that their primary duty is to raise children even to take care of their husband. In these situations, employers might even terminate an employee (to their own detriment) in an effort to force the employee to do what they believe is "right".

Some commonly-cited motivations based on this theory are discussed below.

"Women Belong at Home"

The notion that a woman simply "belongs at home" is the most common way in which these issues are expressed by management. This is a prime example of the sorts of gender stereotypes that foster discrimination against these employees.

The motivation here is not necessarily what is best for the employee or her child, but instead what the employer thinks she "should" do based on traditional gender roles. These employers think that even if the wife makes twice as much as her husband, she should quit her job to raise the children.

A more poignant way of expressing this can be found in Knussman v. Maryland, 272 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2001), where the employee was simply told "God made women to have babies". Speaking of God, several employers do cite their religious views as a basis for this discrimination, which exposes the employer to an additional claim for religious discrimination.

"Children Need Their Mothers"

The traditional notion that children must spend as much time as possible with their mothers is certainly ingrained in our society. This category of cases usually involves an employer who believes they know what is best for the child and believes they are acting in the child's best interest when they terminate or failure to hire the employee.

For example, in Moore v. Alabama State University, 980 F.Supp. 426 (MD Ala 1997), the employee's supervisor told her he believed women should stay at home with their family and denied her a promotion because the new job would involve too much travel for a "married mother", despite the fact that she applied for the job and had already worked out a plan with her husband to accommodate the travel.

Moral stereotyping is not limited to male management employees. Often these issues can come into play when an employee's female supervisor either has grown children or grandchildren and holds strong views on these issues they are not afraid to make known.

A variation on this theme is where an employee's supervisor expresses their belief that placing a child in day care is harmful to their development.

Men are the Breadwinners

Gender stereotypes are also commonly used against men. It is no longer unusual for a husband to drop down to part-time when a child is born while his wife, who might make more money than he does, continues to work full-time.

In certain testosterone-fueled workplaces, this can lead to harassment of "Mr. Mom" by co-workers or he might simply be denied the opportunity to work part-time, even though females are allowed to do so.

This type of claim is rapidly becoming more common as working mothers continue to enter the workplace and men volunteer to help with caregiver duties.

"Reverse" Caregiver Discrimination

Occasionally I come across a case where an employee has suffered "reverse" caregiver discrimination.

For example, if a layoff occurs in a company and a supervisor decides to terminate an above-average, single male employee and instead keep the below-average, married father of two.

In California, this more of an example of "marital status" discrimination, which is specifically prohibited under California law, but these facts could also constitute family status discrimination.

I use this example here because the supervisor is simply applying his own stereotypes and morals to "protect" the man with a family based on his own morals and values instead of what is "fair" to the better-performing employee or what is in the company's best interest.

Bringing Moral Stereotyping Cases

Moral stereotyping cases tend to be the most lucrative and easiest to prove among the various types of caregiver discrimination for a number of reasons.

First, they often involve the most inflammatory evidence that is offensive to the highest number of potential jurors. If a supervisor testifies to his belief that "God made women to have babies" and that this belief was why he did not hire the plaintiff, you can bet that many on the jury may be quite hostile towards the company when awarding the plaintiff damages.

Second, the supervisor who takes the wrongful actions against a plaintiff in such as case is often quite vocal about their motivations when they terminate or refuse to hire because (1) they truly believe they are doing the "right" thing, (2) they want the employee to know that this is the "right" thing and (3) it never crosses their mind that they are handing the employee a substantial lawsuit by "lecturing" them.

One employment law claim that has been quickly becoming more popular these days is "family status discrimination". That is, discriminating against someone based on their familial obligations or simply because they have a family in the first place.

Widespread use of this claim is so recent that it does not even have a consistent name in legal circles. We call it "family status discrimination", but others call it "family responsibilities discrimination", "FSD" or "FRD" for short, "caregiver discrimination" and countless other names, but they are all the same idea.

This post is the first in a series on the subject which is fairly expansive, quite interesting and can also get confusing.

The Impetus

The reason I bring this subject up now is because I just started a case representing two women against the same former employer who violated almost all of the various family status discrimination theories in dealing with one or both of them.

It is a very interesting case for several reasons, not the least of which is the ironic twist that the employer is an organization that actively promotes equality for women and the building of strong families as its mission.

While settlement discussions are under way, I cannot speak too much about this case in particular, but if it does end up in litigation I will post more details such as the identity of the employer.

The Legal Basis

I should first point out that the term "family status" is not mentioned anywhere in federal or California employment law statutes.

Instead, these claims are based on other existing employment laws, such as gender, marital status or pregnancy discrimination. The Family Medical Leave Act, California Family Rights Act, Pregnancy Disability Leave and other statutes also come into play.

Family status discrimination is one of those areas where employee-rights attorneys are very "creative" in crafting their legal theories. New ways of approaching the claims are constantly being tested in courts across the country and often prevailing.

This series is meant to be an exploration of these various theories and how they can be used under California law to protect employees.

In this third and final installment in our series on Ron Paul's comments about employee rights in his book Freedom Under Siege, we examine his views on civil rights legislation in general, which can be found in several sections of his book, but is best summed up with the following quote found on page 39:

[P]eople have the right to discriminate...in choosing...an employee.... Civil rights legislation of the past thirty years has totally ignored this principle. Many 'do-gooders,' of course, argue from the 'moral high ground' for their version of equal rights, knowing that they can play the sympathies and the guilt of many Americans.

It appears Mr. Paul is not only against protection of women in the face of discrimination, but virtually all protected minorities and classifications, including race, religion, and age.

What else is there for me to say about Mr. Paul's views other than I disagree completely and as someone who thinks of himself as a "do-gooder," they offend me. I would think the majority of independent voters tend to agree with me, but recent polls showing independent support for him seem to tell a different story.

This will likely be my last foray into political commentary for this election cycle. It has been an eye-opening experience and at least solidified who I will not be supporting in the upcoming elections.

This is the second in our series of posts based on Presidential Candidate Ron Paul's musings on employee rights in his book Freedom Under Siege. This installment's "Paulism" can be found on page 17 of the book:

The idea that the social do-gooder can legislate a system which forces industry to pay men and women by comparable worth standards boggles the mind...The concept of equal pay for equal work is...an impossible task.... By what right does the government assume the power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive women if it does not want to?

Mr. Paul's opinion that only attractive women should work as flight attendants is amusing, but it does bring up some employment law issues, both explicitly and implicitly.

Gender Identity Discrimination

As a general principle, it is not illegal in California to choose an attractive job candidate over a candidate who is equally qualified but unattractive, as long as this is the actual reason for the decision.

However, issues such as the person being unattractive because of a disability or the person doing the hiring would simply rather work with the less-qualified attractive woman than the highly qualified male applicant, discrimination claims become more of an option.

Another issue this brings up is known as "gender identity discrimination". Essentially, this refers to an employer refusing to hire or firing someone for not "acting like" their gender. For example, a woman who is not feminine enough is rejected for employment by Victoria's Secret or a man who acts too effeminate is terminated from his job as an auto mechanic.

This theory of gender discrimination is still fairly rare, but is much more common than it was even five years ago, especially concerning transgendered employees. The crux of the legal argument is that because adverse employment actions are taken against these employees because they are not conforming to the stereotypical behavior and appearance of their gender, these actions are taken because of their gender, thus making it gender discrimination.

There have been a few cases where employees have made arguments similar to Mr. Paul's hypothetical, but usually not successfully. For example, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that female casino employees can be required to wear makeup even when their male counterparts are not.

Equal Pay for Equal Work

The undercurrent of Mr. Paul's quote, however, is its reference to "equal pay for equal work." This refers to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ("EPA"), which is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act and says that, all other things being equal, women must be paid as much as their male counterparts in a company (and vice-versa).

Under Mr. Paul's view, an employer should be free to pay each employee whatever they wish for whatever reason they wish. While this makes sense when all employees are on equal footing when competing for jobs, it ignores the realities of the United States' (and the rest of the world's) ingrained discriminatory attitudes towards women.

The EPA was passed to curtail employer behavior based on outdated stereotypes of women. For example, paying women less because of an employers' belief that:

• Women belong in the home and should be discouraged from entering the workplace;
• Women will eventually quit once they "find" a husband;
• Women will eventually leave to have babies; or
• Women are inherently less qualified or less intelligent than men.

Study after study has shown that women are still paid less than men for doing the exact same job. The EPA was passed in an attempt to remedy this and since its passage the disparity in pay has substantially decreased.

However, when Mr. Paul wrote his book in 1987 the gap was much larger than it is today and blatant discrimination against women in the workplace was much more prevalent.

Conclusion

Apparently Ron Paul thinks bias against women is a perfectly good reason to make pay-level decisions. While he is entitled to his opinion, I am unable to understand how his supporters are more than 50% female.

At first I thought this was similar to his prior racist and homophobic rants, which are somewhat buried in history and do not get much coverage. However, this book is actually heralded by his supporters, including rave reviews by women.

I guess I just don't get it.

I have tried to tune out most of the political primary hysteria because I (1) made up my mind about who I would be supporting in the election long ago and (2) I live in California, so my opinion is not really that important at this stage.

Today I happened to stumble across some of Ron Paul's comments in Freedom Under Siege, a book (the link is to a 160 page pdf file of it) he published in 1987. Although I have heard in the past about racist, homophobic, intolerant, etc. comments he has made, I had not heard about some of the things he says about employee rights in this book.

I am neither a proponent of Ron Paul, nor am I an active opponent of his. I believe he has many great ideas, but like most people with a few great radical ideas, he also has a few radical bad ideas. These will be chronicled in a series of posts over the next few days. Originally this was going to be just one post, but the more I read this book, the more material I came up with.

"So-Called Harassment"

The first passage that jumped out at me is on page 17 of the book where he states the following about employees who are sexually harassed by their employers:

Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? ...[H]ow can the harassee escape [any] responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable...pressure and submission is hardly an example of a violation of one's employment rights.

Mr. Paul apparently believes that employers should be free to demand sexual favors from their employees and then terminate them if they are refused. Clearly this viewpoint is offensive to women and is not going to be adopted by anyone other than the far-far-far-right wing of American politics, but it also defies logic from a pure policy standpoint.

Why Don't they Just Quit?

In Ron Paul's view, an employee who is sexually harassed should just walk down the street and get a different job. Apparently the employer's "punishment" is that the employee quits.

However, this ignores the reality that employees cannot just start a new job right away without suffering any damages. What if that employee left a good job to work for this new employer? What if the employee moved to take this job and it is the only company where she can practice in her field (e.g. the only hospital or school in the area)?

"Hardly" a Violation of Employment Rights

Take this hypothetical of a single mother who works hard at her job as a secretary to put food on the table for her children. She has a disabled child who needs frequent medical care and had to wait a full year to get coverage under her employer's health plan. She has received steady raises in her pay to where she finally has enough money coming in to pay her bills and feed her family.

One day, the owner of the company asks her into his office, closes the door behind her and asks her to have sex with him on the couch. She refuses and he says if she is not undressed and on the couch in thirty seconds she is fired.

Current Law

Under current law in both California and the rest of the United States, the employee could simply refuse her employer's advances and sue for lost wages and benefits (until she gets another, comparable position), emotional distress, punitive damages, costs and attorney's fees.

Not only does this serve to compensate an employee who is forced to go through such an ordeal, but it also acts as a deterrent because employers would expect to be sued if this happened.

Ron Paul's View

Apparently Ron Paul believes that in this example the employee has the "right" to quit on the spot and no longer provide services to the employer. However, the employer also has the "right" to demand sex from his employees and terminate them if they do not comply.

The employee is forced to choose between food, shelter and healthcare for her children and being degraded at the hands of her employer. At the instant she makes her decision the "right" decision is far from clear.

This type of scene already plays out far too often in the United States, but imagine if employers had absolutely no liability for taking these sorts of actions.

Conclusion

Sexual harassment laws were passed in large part to deal with the extreme difference in power between employers and their employees.

Employers can make their employees do virtually anything they want within the boundaries of the law, but society has decided that employees should not be forced to choose between being a sex slave and surviving financially or professionally.

Does Ron Paul seriously believe that employees should be forced to make this decision and employers who force them to should not suffer any consequences? If so, do the 10% of people voting for him the primaries agree with him on this?

Let me first say that I rarely disagree with decisions by California state or federal appellate courts (at least those I am not personally involved in and therefore biased towards). However, I occasionally come across a case where I just think the court got it wrong.

In Mokler v. County of Orange, et.al. (Cal.App.Dist.4 11/26/2007), No. G036029, a former Orange County employee sued under several different claims, including sexual harassment of her by a county supervisor. While I agree with the court's decision on most of the issues presented by the case, I do disagree on their sexual harassment analysis and decision.

The Facts of the Case

Without going into too much detail, Ms. Mokler had to interact with Orange County Supervisors "on almost a daily basis" as part of her job duties, including Supervisor Chris Norby. Mokler introduced herself to Norby at a budget hearing in 2003 and he promptly asked her if she was married. When she said no, he called her an "aging nun". Mokler reported the incident to her supervisor, but he did nothing about it and actually told Mokler to "be careful".

Mokler next encountered Norby at a hotel where a political event was being held. Norby took her arm, pressed her body up against his and said "in a flirtatious manner: 'Did you come here to lobby me?'" Mokler responded that she was not there to lobby him and he asked "Why not? These women are lobbying me," gesturing to two women standing next to him. Norby continued to hold her body up against his, looked her up and down, and told her she had "a nice suit and nice legs". Mokler was finally able to push her self away from him and again went to her supervisor who again told her to "be careful" and further suggested she "needed 'to win him over'".

Mokler's final encounter with Norby occurred in his office. When she arrived, he put his arm around her and told her she looked "nice". He walked over to a large map on the wall and asked her where she lived. When she hesitated, he "demanded she provide her exact address." He put his arm around Mokler again and rubbed her breast with his arm until she pushed herself away from him and apparently a male co-worker interrupted them.

The Trial Court's Decision

The jury found in Mokler's favor on her sexual harassment claim against Norby, but awarded no damages to her for the claim. While uncommon, this does occur where an employee suffers no economic damages as a direct result of the harassment and they are unable to prove any emotional distress or other special damages. However, the trial court ultimately "entered judgment on this claim against Norby, but nonetheless declared him the 'prevailing party' and awarded costs in his favor."

In California sexual harassment cases, the "prevailing party" is entitled to attorney's fees and costs, but I am still scratching my head on how Norby had a judgment entered against him and is still considered to have "prevailed".

The only reason for this I can come up with is that there as an offer made under California Code of Civil Procedure 998.  Under that statute, if a party offers to settle for a set amount, the offer is rejected, and then the other party gets less than was originally offered to them, the opposing party can get their costs reimbursed.  However, this is not mentioned anywhere in the opinion and there are several reasons why even this does not make sense as a reason.  But this is not the point of the post, so I will let it go...

The County appealed several of the trial court's rulings, including the finding of sexual harassment by Norby for creating a "hostile work environment".

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that no hostile work environment was created by Norby. The court ruled that Norby's conduct was not "severe or pervasive" enough to justify the trial court's finding that sexual harassment occurred.

It is extremely rare to find a case where both the jury and the trial court found that sexual harassment occurred and the appellate court reverses that decision. In almost all cases that are reversed like this, it is usually very clear that sexual harassment did not occur and the jury got it wrong. I would submit to you that in this case the jury was right and the appellate court was in error.

The appellate court based its decision on a number of factors, including their findings that the incidents "involved no physical threats," "the touching...was brief and did not constitute an extreme act of harassment," and the demand for her address was "brazen," but "[did not create]...a hostile work environment."

To me, if a manager rubs a subordinate's breast, this does constitute "an extreme act of harassment". This is sexual assault, plain and simple, which is punishable as a crime in California! How this conduct could ever not qualify as "severe" or "extreme" is beyond me. Further,holding her body up against his and telling her she has nice legs also borders on extreme.

The court suggests that no "physical threats" occurred. However, when a supervisor grabs an employee's breast after demanding to know where she lives and getting no response, to me this certainly does qualify as a "physical threat".

Additionally, while it is unclear whether Mokler brought her sexual harassment claim against just Norby or against Orange County as well, I believe the county should have liability here. When Mokler complained to her supervisor about Norby's conduct, he simply told her to "be careful" and that she "needed to win him over." I do not know whether these remarks were intended to suggest that she go along with Norby's behavior or if this was a veiled threat against her for complaining, but the way the court's opinion reads it seems the county did absolutely nothing to stop Norby's conduct and possibly tried to stop her from bringing it up.

This is simply one man's opinion, but I call them like I see them and to me this case was decided incorrectly by the appellate court. I do not know if Mokler plans to file an appeal, but I would be very interested to see what the California Supreme Court would decide after reviewing the case.

Sometimes it is easy to forget that discrimination against women, minorities and (of course) minority women still occurs in this country.

This might bring to mind examples where uneducated, unskilled women are denied employment and/or harassed by uneducated men who think of them as sex objects, such as in the movie North Country.

However, as discussed on Susan Cartier Liebel's blog, this subject comes up in all areas of employment, including lawyers. Susan discusses the recent Wall Street Journal blog post: "When You Land The Job Interview, Should The Ring Come Off?", which discusses whether lawyers should ditch their wedding ring for job interviews.

At first glance, some might think of this as paranoia, but an anonymous legal recruiter actually explains how the partners at law firms specifically tell him they prefer male over female recruits because they think these women will eventually get pregnant and either take time off or leave to start a family.

Sometimes employers are ignorant of the law and actually come right out and ask applicants about their family life for this very purpose. They ask things such as whether they plan to have children, what their husband thinks of them working outside the home and other questions that are not only illegal, but often extremely offensive.

While I would take this as a "red flag" that this is someone you might not want to work for, here is an article about how to deal with such questions "tactfully".

In California, it is illegal to hire a man over a married (or unmarried) woman for any of these or similar reasons. Marital status discrimination is not hard to prove when an employer makes it a habit of doing this. All you have to do is look at the list of who is hired and who is not when new employees are hired.

Q: Last week I found out I was pregnant and my husband and I were overjoyed. The next day, I went into work and told my boss. He said that he does not allow pregnant women to work there because they disrupt scheduling when they take time off to have the baby. He terminated me and said I could re-apply for my position after I have the baby. Help!

--Pregnant and Unemployed (CA)

A: As you probably know, it is illegal under both federal and California law for an employer to terminate an employee because she becomes pregnant.

Pregnancy Discrimination Claims

Pregnancy discrimination is actually a form of gender discrimination. The rationale is that only women can become pregnant, so discriminating against a woman for being pregnant is essentially discriminating against her for being a woman.

Medical Leave Claims

Your situation also constitutes discrimination under the California Family Rights Act and other medical leave laws. If you are terminated because your employer anticipates you will be taking time off that is protected by the law, it is basically the same as if you were terminated for taking that leave after the fact.

Pregnancy Discrimination Claims More Successful

A recent survey showed that pregnancy discrimination cases seem to have a higher success rate than other employment discrimination claims. I believe this is the result of a few related factors.

First, an employee can point to a specific date when their employer found out they were pregnant and if the employer terminates or otherwise discriminates against the employee a short time later, it is clear that pregnancy was the reason.

Second, it just "makes sense" that an employer would tend to discriminate against pregnant employees. In California an employee can take up to four months of protected leave for the birth of a child. The employer essentially gets a few months notice that an employee will definitely be taking such a leave in the near future. It is only human for a manager to decide that things might go more smoothly if the pregnant employee was replaced.

This, of course, does not make it right.

Damages in These Cases are Sobering for Employers

When the inconvenience of employing a pregnant woman is compared to the potential damages a company might be forced to pay her later if she successfully sues them, it should be all to clear to them that not terminating her is much cheaper than terminating her.

This is especially true for employers in California, where they can be forced to pay an employee her lost wages, attorney's fees, and virtually unlimited emotional distress and punitive damages.