This is disgusting, but not surprising. Companies want young, healthy people that they can under-pay and over-work without fear of them needing a medical leave.
I really didn't care the age of who I hired but my company was tiny and it was a struggle for me to pay a good salary and provide insurance (both of which I did). I was not looking to take advantage of anybody. However if somebody came on and went on extended medical leave, I wouldn't have been able to keep paying them - not out of personal greed but because there literally would not be money to pay them. My salary was not much, if any more than my employees. Possible I might have had some legal obligation to keep providing some type of insurance - I'm not sure.
As it turns out he was completely unqualified - his resume did not jive at all with his knowledge - so I did not have to face the dilemma of whether I would hire him vs a younger, healthier applicant. But it did make me think and appreciate both sides of the situation.
For very early-stage companies where the total employees (and potentially revenue) can be counted on one hand, all hires are critical.
So a single hire who goes on extended medical leave, or sends your insurance rates through the roof can literally kill your company. Is it the person's fault? Not at all, but you are still left dealing with the consequences.
I wonder how early-stage companies draw this line and deal with this type of decision assuming the reason is not related to any of the protected classes from a hiring standpoint.
I know when I was younger it never even occurred to me to wonder where my paycheck came from.