I can't believe there will not be a class action suit.
27 replies (most recent on top)
Wells is very careful about age discrimination. Their disclosure is a good way to protect themselves from age discrimination suits. This is just the first barrier.
Finding a lawyer who would take on this for you will be hard. You need a lot more evidence than the simple fact that you were laid off. Even if you arm yourself with needed additional evidence (such as emails, recorded conversations, unjustified performance evaluations, etc) -- they will come up with their own. Most DEI departments are geared toward creating this. So when you accuse them of discrimination it is surprising how much fabricated evidence they can come up with about your discrimination. Your lawyer will usually tell you to go for the first settlement offer and tell you how lucky you are to get that. So if you have the additional evidence and the time I say go for it -- and good fortune.
Do you only receive the layoff summary if you’re over 40? I’m 32 and recently laid off and do not see any reports in the documentation.
I agree. If you get laid off at younger age, that's a performance issue. The younger generation employees are known to be lazy.
Most of employees between 30-50 are either in a manager position or in an executive position. These are core employees who are running the organization. The company will not layoff these important people. The company will also not usually lay off younger people because they are have high expectations on their future potential and their salaries are not so large compared to older employees. But if you are still laid off at a younger age, it means you are very inexperienced and performed very poorly on your job. So in your case, it had nothing to do with age discrimination, but it was solely due to your poor job performance! LOL
We are NOT talking about the law on when it becomes effective. We are talking about the actual discrimination practice, which usually starts happening around 60. We are talking about the pattern of discrimination. You have some reading comprehension issue.
My co-worker, in his 60’s, was laid off and had to sign an agreement stating that the layoff was not due to ageism, in order to receive severance.
"people over 40 are not old. But the age discrimination starts around 60 which is closer to the retirement age."
We're talking about the law. In the USA, age discrimination legal protection starts at age 40.
Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination
None of those things they are "telling us" have anything to do with company performance. In fact, their obsession with admin buildings is a major contributor to what is making us so inefficient. They can F off, and so can you. I'm not quiting because a mo--n in Hudson Yards does counterproductive nonsense. That id--t can pay me a severance if he wants me to leave. Unlike me, Shart has brought NOTHING of value to this company.
Layoffs aren’t made based on age. However so many of you dead-weight anchors have been sitting around so long it could appear to be age discrimination. They have been telling you for years… you need to be in a core market, you need to actually contribute something of value, and you need to show your face in the office if you care about keeping your job. Not sure why people can’t get this through their thick heads. Again, if you don’t like it, find another company that will be willing to deal with you.
I doubt there is an institutional plan to fire older workers. You need to keep in mind that the objective here is to drive voluntary attrition, and you can't do that if you "only fire the old people". They need to drive maximum fear, doubt and anxiety across all age ranges. That's why layoffs have been so strung out and so randomized.
Funny... I would throw a party if I got a severance package!!!
so I will be 60 soon, make 83% of pay range, been with company 18 years and present group 5 years, are you saying I should already be gone?
No. We simply have too many people and generally speaking, those with more tenure and higher in management ladder are
NOT EFFICIENT .
I love how everyone knows humans are living longer, and everyone pushes us to work to 70 tears old for maximum Social Security benefit (hoping we'll die early so govt pays less than if we'd filed at age 62, 65 or 67). Yet, how does anyone stay employed until 70 years old, much less 62, 65 or 67?
Talk about a Catch-22! It's terrifying.
@rkz+1pIDh2n9 Excellent response, thank you for the useful info. To those who constantly mock 60+ workers: It will be your turn one day, so remember that time goes by very quickly and your ageism now will be turned on you soon enough.
Yes and I have an attorney ready to sue. He assures me we have a fantastic case once my severance is up
It’s time to go boomers! Just think about what the younger generations are facing. We are the luckiest generation, we worked enough and made more than enough.
everyone talks about the algorithm, can anyone definitively list the formula?
Absolutely yes. The algorithm that punches your number starts with 61-64 years of age making 70% of your pay range. They want you at or under 60 and no higher than mid-point of your job description’s pay range. Over these two criteria and your severance eligible. It gets acerbated if you have worked for the company for over 25 years and been in your present job for 7-10 years and are the higher paid relative to your other co-workers with the same job title.
I think it's moreso the older folks make a lot more than the younger folks. It's just a spreadsheet game.
Most definitely! It is clear that age + years of service + whatever else falls into the current layoff algorithm skews toward the older folks automatically.
"people over 40 are not old. But the age discrimination starts around 60 which is closer to the retirement age"
It is subtle but it's there. It starts with the oldster jokes, then progressing to the question of "are you going to finish our your career here" to the doozy of "when are you going to retire? It seems as though it is ok constantly ask those types of questions.
Yes, and have lawyer at the ready.
I'm sure all the firm needs to look at is Enterprise wide, not just your department
@fkv+1pIDh2n9, people over 40 are not old. But the age discrimination starts around 60 which is closer to the retirement age. My displacement packet showed most of the laid-off workers in my department were over 60, including myself. My teammates who survived were all younger than 60.
Yes, if you are over 62, there is almost 90% chance that you will be let go.
I feel like it is the opposite. During my round of layoffs… the youngest 1/3 of the team was laid off. (You receive a disclosure in the displacement packet that tells you the ages of those laid off and those that kept jobs, and it looked like WF was purposely keeping everyone over 40!)