Sorry to disapoint you. My friend who works in recruiting told me, that one company wouldn't accept perfectly skilled candidate, because he was around the same age as their current COBOL developer. They argumented, that they don't want both of them die around the same time.

As opposed to them quitting at the same time? What kind of rationale I'd that.

I'm almost certain that your mate was telling a joke. People don't usually die on the job, they retire before that.

That almost sounds like an "old programmer" joke. Are you sure he wasn't pulling your leg?

Not really sure that's agism.

It is at least according to the law, i.e. that you don’t discriminate against protected classes, regardless of why.

Eh, that’s not how it’s written I believe? Not that it really applies here, but you can (and have to) discriminate against a protected class if it is a core part of the job requirement that excludes them and there is no reasonable workaround. For instance, if there are no accessible robotic exoskeletons around, discriminating against someone unable to lift 50 lbs because of a physical disability if the job requires someone to lift 50 lbs all day is perfectly legal. If you’re hiring someone to act as a 20 year old, you can discriminate against people because of their inability to look 20 all day long, etc.

The problem is such as this case where the company seems to think that people aged the same die at the same time? Which doesn’t seem to have any plausible basis in fact or a reasonable job requirement.

>>The problem is such as this case where the company seems to think that people aged the same die at the same time? Which doesn’t seem to have any plausible basis in fact or a reasonable job requirement.<<

Wouldn't an actuarial table suffice?

It would suffice to show that it isn’t true that everyone at the same age dies at the same time, if that is what you meant?

No, you can discriminate on any basis if there's a "reasonable factor" unrelated to that basis. Models and actors, for example, are selected by age, race and sex quite routinely.

You won’t suffer a respectable salary, either. COBOL doesn’t pay well, even as it’s increasing in importance.

Case in point, the governor of New Jersey asked for volunteers.

The US Military is a force comprised of volunteers, and yet they get paid.

You'll be paid enough to be comfortable, not rich, even more so when you consider that most COBOL jobs are not in Silicon Valley.

Money can't buy everything nor can it be the salve for all indignities.

Okay, but it sounds like COBOL is indignity and low pay, yes?

If I’m going to go and make less money as a deliberate life choice, it’ll either be something overtly charitable or it’ll be doing something fun, like in the arts. It won’t be boring work for someone else to profit off of.