Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
They recommend it, because it isn't the case now.
|
I quoted that because it's the only one that I found to be general. However:
District of Columbia: Birth records become public 100 years after the date of birth.
Virginia: Birth records are public information 100 years after the date of the event
South Dakota: This site contains information from birth records with birth dates of over 100 years of age as required by South Dakota Codified Law 34-25-8
Connecticut: Access to birth records less than 100 years old is somewhat restricted. Only the people listed in the record, certain relatives, municipal employees, attorneys, and members of certain genealogical societies may receive certified copies of birth records less than 100 years old.
If you want, I can look for the rules in each of the states, but it even if the time limit isn't 100 for all states it would make sense that some time has to pass before access to the records is unrestricted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
It's really not a matter of whether or not one "considers" it to be illegal. It is not illegal. That's not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.
|
I've responded to this point when taustin made the same assertion.
The
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 clearly prohibits age discrimination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
My dictionary defines "fraud" as:
Quote:
|
Deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
|
This was deceit (lying about her age) perpetrated for profit (gaining work she would not otherwise have been considered for), so it certainly seems to me to fit the definition of "fraud". |
Again, my perspective on this is that since the legal age shouldn't matter, only her ability to play the part, there is no reason for her not to be considered based on her age.