Answer:
Yes He does, although it may not yield any result because the supposed employers have other reasons to back up themselves.
Explanation:
There are a couple of laws that can come handy in proving his case, they are ad follows;
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) was passed to address discrimination in employment based upon Age. The ADEA is simply to prohibit employers with 20 or more employees from discriminating against employees who are 40 years of age and older. The Act protects against disparate treatment and policies that have a disparate impact on covered employees
Disparate Treatment – This involves direct discriminatory treatment of an employee by the employer (or the employer’s representative). The plaintiff must convince the court that the employer intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff. The plaintiff may demonstrate intent by showing that discrimination is a “substantial or motivating factor” for the employer’s action or decision.
In this case Arthur can prove age discrimination against him on the ground of statement made that whether he was comfortable working with 20 year old employees. He can also support his point with the fact that it was obvious from the interview that interviewer was worried about the speed and computer skills being slow due to the age factor, inspite of the fact that Arthur meets all job requirements.
However, Employer can defend himself on the ground that Arthur was rejected not because of age but due to some other issue like lack of required skills ( not speed linked to age factor), high salary expectations which was out of the company's Budget, joining date not suitable to both. Parties and so on.
