When Workplace Traditions Become a Problem for Older Employees: Accessibility, Dignity, and Age Discrimination

My name is Todd Hammon. I work for Hawaiʻi Residency Programs, Inc., in Honolulu, where I have been employed for 18 years.

I am 62 years old, and I have a question for other AARP members: At what point does an employer's choice of a workplace venue become an issue of age discrimination and disregard for employees with physical limitations?

For the third or fourth consecutive year, our organization is holding an all-day workshop at Hoʻoulu ʻĀina, located deep in the back of Kalihi Valley on Oʻahu. These workshops involve discussions about medical residency programs and are attended by employees who are expected to spend several hours participating in professional activities.

The problem is that the facilities are extraordinarily unsuitable for anyone who is older, physically frail, or has mobility limitations.

To put this into perspective, here are some of the conditions:

• No practical transportation access: The facilities are off-road, with no direct access for Uber, taxis, or accessible transportation services. Private vehicles must travel some distance over an uneven, often muddy road to reach the site.

• No wheelchair accessibility: There are no meaningful accommodations for people who have difficulty walking or navigating uneven terrain.

• Inadequate restroom facilities: There is a single toilet. On our previous visit, it would not even flush properly. Toilet paper was also in short supply.

• No running hot water: Basic washing facilities are inadequate.

• No indoor meeting space: Participants are expected to sit under an outdoor tent for several hours, regardless of their physical comfort or individual needs.

• Remote location: The site is sufficiently isolated that getting assistance or leaving comfortably during the day is not particularly straightforward.

I personally have significant bursitis and am physically frail. After 18 years of service to this organization, I find myself wondering why I am expected to participate in an all-day professional event under conditions that make the experience unnecessarily difficult and physically taxing.

I want to be clear: I have nothing against the concept of outdoor meetings, environmental retreats, or appreciating Hawaiʻi's natural surroundings. Those can be worthwhile experiences. But there is a considerable difference between choosing an unconventional meeting venue and choosing one that effectively excludes employees who cannot comfortably navigate the terrain or tolerate the facilities.

What particularly troubles me is that this is not an unexpected, one-time situation. The organization has held these events at this location repeatedly. The accessibility limitations are readily apparent, yet the venue continues to be selected.

I am not asking for special treatment, nor am I suggesting that every workplace gathering must take place in a luxury hotel. I am asking for something considerably more basic: reasonable consideration for employees' age, physical limitations, dignity, and ability to participate on equal terms.

There is also a larger question here. As the workforce ages, how many employers give serious consideration to the physical realities of their older employees? We hear plenty about diversity, inclusion, and workplace equity, but those principles should extend to the actual environments in which employees are expected to work.

Inclusion should not end where the paved road ends.

I would genuinely like to hear from other AARP members. Have you encountered similar situations in which an employer's workplace decisions seem to disregard older employees or people with physical limitations? How have you addressed them?