https://setexasrecord.com/stories/599845957-exxonmobil-used-employee-ranking-system-to-eliminate-older-workers-suit-alleges
43 replies (most recent on top)
Still happening. I'm needs improvement. But most knowledgeable. Asked to train younger workers improve ranking.
DW is a boomer too. Once he reads this, he will go crazy a PIP more millennials this time.
https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/workers-are-retiring-in-droves-but-its-not-always-something-to-celebrate-11622844639
To all those commenting and can't believe it can happen to you, it can.
I’ve just seen this on LinkedIn. It tells what you need to know without insults:
“If you think you’re smarter than the previous generation...50 years ago the owner’s manual of a car showed you how to adjust the valves. Today it warns you not to drink the contents of the battery.”
Some people here (presumably young) seem to have a thing against older people. If they would be smart enough, they would rather focus on the fact we’re all fodder for the meat grinder. Some are being forced out with 75% of the pension after being promised a normal pension for 30 years, others will be mowed as soon as they get close to 50, when it’s going to be excruciatingly difficult to find another similar job. So let’s make DW and his minions smile by fighting and insulting each other, while waiting to become tributes in the Hunger Games.
I am impressed. This is indeed an inclusion and diversity moment. SO much love for Boomers and we are ExxonMobil!
Keep this going guys!
@1lly Again, cool story.
If the suit gets tossed (quite possible), or if it does proceed and the legal counsel for the plaintiff has their heads handed to them (possible and likely), then not only is a legal precedent set for what is probably bad policy, but the bar (no pun intended) is raised that much higher for next person to demonstrate that they are being discriminated against on the basis of their age.
The best case scenario for the plaintiff is that EM settles, in which case they (the plaintiff) will get a fraction of the sought damages after signing a sweeping NDA. Based on the information in the link, my guess is that EM attorneys will request to have the case dismissed.
how long did it take you to figure out how to turn on your computer and get to this website?
Jose is cool. All of you are jelous becase you were piped during your first five years. Jose lasted 30 years and now will get a nice 1M bonus judgment on his favor.
No way Jose. You are 62 with 30 years of service. Time to cash in on the lump pension with historically low interest rates. Go enjoy whatever time you have left on earth.
This is ironic because we’ve all been told in our ranking sessions at some point how “perception is reality”. Doesn’t have to be true, just the perception....
Well take this Exxon - perception is reality. The perception is the ranking system is predatory and sucks.
I’ll probably regret this but what the he-l is a RandyMan ?
Expect to feel several bone tremors and be perceived by all around you to be a disgrace.
You will be in an accident involving a screen door and a RandyMan.
Goodnight
The company has discreetly offered incentives for early retirement in 2016-2017. Back then the management was still clinging to some old-fashioned ideas, not of treating people humanly (hey, it is and always was Exxon !) but of preserving the trust around retirement. Now they just don’t care if the employees with 15 ys figure out that they’re going to be thrown out by age 50, when they get expensive. It’s a brave new world, which is probably going to eventually end with the company being bought and 95% of the people laid off (see BP’s treatment of Amoco and Arco).
Love the idea. As an NRE, I totally agree with you. Offer a “bridge” to retirement and my a$$ is out of the way. I would think that it would be cheaper than keeping us around also since NREs are virtually impossible to terminate due to fear of lawsuits.
Why didn’t the company offer the NRE folks something to get them out the door? Most are waiting to get to a certain age or years of service and performing low value work. Just add a year or two to their age or years of service and get them out the door. Don’t PIP them as your just asking for trouble.
I would take the jury to the campus. Let them see the advisors with all the experience in the cubicles while the young 10 year managers fresh off their 3 year rotations in the glass offices.
Doesn’t even have to go anywhere. As employees of ExxonMobil we’re all familiar with the practices and underhanded insincere tactics. We know how certain groups are targeted, the favouritism, double dealing, outsourcing etc etc
This is just further validation for the rest us. Proof of what we already know from our daily personal experiences and those of our colleagues, again from one of our own.
@1dal Cool story, but that’s all speculative. Ditto for the others posting who think this lawsuit will go anywhere. Consider the following:
1) Even if everything you described ends up implying what you say it could, there’s probably still no through-line that can be drawn connecting involuntarily terminations with former employees above a particular age. Meeting a reasonable standard in civil court would require that legal counsel demonstrate that such a through line exists.
2) Assume that legal counsel could establish such a through line. They would still have to show that the policy had discriminatory intent, which considering that people in all age groups were affected, will be difficult (probably impossible) to demonstrate conclusively according to a reasonable legal standard.
I could go on all night, but I won’t. This case is DOA. In fact, I’m betting that the suit gets tossed. Those of you who complain about minorities being privileged and protected should take note: it’s virtually impossible to prove discriminatory intent in court.
Age discrimination to get rid of expensive employees was old Mobil (pre-merger) strategy, until they got hit by a barrage of lawsuits and had to cease and desist. It was a d-mb strategy born of desperation, the kind of thing a company does before it sinks. At the merger, Exxon management was looking down at Mobil, as in “these bums, we would never lower ourselves to that”. Are here we are... a strategy born of desperation, from a company about to sink.
Filling up my pants with brown.
I don't think he can win this case because the PIP was applied equally to all the assessment groups. Most likely the lawyers convinced him the company will settle rather than fight. In my experience that is wrong. Only winner here is the lawyers.
EM lawyers were very careful about who will be NSI to avoid lawsuits. For example, if 20% of employees are black, no more than 20% of employer who were NSI will be black. Same for hispanic, women, disabled, g-y/le----n, or anyone over 40. Those over 50 are not really protected because age discrimination covers anyone over 40, the percentage of employees over 50 is smaller then those over 50, so, in theory all employees over 50 could be terminated without a good basis for a discrimination lawsuit. However, lawsuits are decided by a jury, not statistics. If there is a disproportionate number in a certain age group, it might lead a jury to agree that the company discriminated. Legal has a difficult job protecting the company from a discrimination lawsuit from any protected class. Unfortunately this means that for EM to meet their desired headcount or salary reduction, some undesirable employees will remain and some good employees will be let go to even out the percentages. It sucks that some young employees will be sacrificed to get rid of the old farts that should have retired a long time ago.
Pretty weak suit as submitted, though the allegation is regarding overall change in policy in 2020 v. individual treatment. That is the key.
Not a class action joining type of thing, this particular suit.
But will garner attention from some bigger sharks, to keep with the nautical drift.
Thanks to poster below:
Full lawsuit here - https://s3.amazonaws.com/jnswire/jns-media/ee/08/11564466/95881521.PDF
This is merely a first case - and litigation must start in TX to get this rolling.
It is that first little poke into the oyster shell, before it's pried apart in full.
A complete list of all US PiPed personnel with details of age, etc. will be disengaged from the shell.
From there - a little horseradish will slip the corporation down the gullet.
(Never out of season.)
Sorry for all the legal speak. It's not complicated all I'm saying.
JG is sc-m
@1rnd+1baN33Ng
“To make sure that both the policy and any action based on the policy will hold up to a legal challenge”.
Yes, we have good lawyers and we’re usually very careful. However, when your entire recovery strategy is based on getting rid of “high cost” employees, aka employees over 50, you can’t be so careful. Lawyers might have doubts but they will not overrule the policy of the “Dear Leader” DW.
When the company was occasionally pushing out somebody already over 60, those isolated cases were very difficult to prove in court. Now that the company is systematically eliminating all REs through the oversized MLRP, there are entirely new avenues to prove age discrimination. If the lawyers can subpoena data such as how many of the few remaining RE will be put in NSI this year, we might see something interesting. For instance, if 70% of the remaining REs end up in NSI in just one year, that’s a very unusual pattern. Even if HR is super careful and throws in a lot of young people in to dilute the RE proportion, the lawyers could still get something highly relevant, because now practically all workers over 60 are out, one way or another. Now they’re going for the 55 to 60, forcing people not just into retirement, but into early retirement. However, in the last 30 years very few people aged 55-60 would be put in MLRP; last year and this year there will be an obvious surge of 55-60 falling in NSI compared to historical data, although they might be only say, 30% of those put in NSI (hence the need for oversized MLRP, to have more room to hide the REs).
@OP Alleging discrimination and proving it in court are two different things.
Whenever a company like EM implements any personnel policy, it is given a detailed review by more than one person on the legal team. This is done to make sure that both the policy and any action based on the policy will hold up to a legal challenge, which in this case it probably will.
The legal counsel representing the person who filed this suit will have to demonstrate to some reasonable standard that not only was their client involuntarily terminated based largely upon their age, but that it was also the result of a deliberate and targeted organizational policy. Good luck with that.
Pro tip: if you’re going to take a company like EM to court, pick your battles wisely.
They made “cultural fit” a huge portion of the assessment criteria for this exact reason
@edf+1baN33Ng Pretty sure everyone at EM is at least 93 octane autistic, so couldn’t fall too far
Waste of money
I worked with that guy. Smart guy but he was not a team player. Always had vague answers when he was asked questions. Also didnt take any criticism well. Even constructive criticism. I got moved to another group but not surprised he got ranked out.
He needs the Texas Hammer
Pretty sure the silly boomer doesn't have any real proof for any of his allegations. In his opinion he is a rock star and should always rank high because he got awards at some point during his tenure? And because he finally didnt rank high and was let go its discrimination and he is owed 1 million bucks? Right!!!! Good luck with that one boomer!
"At will" Sure, under Texas law a company doesn't have to give you a reason, but that doesn't change federal law which prohibits firing for age, s-x, religion, and a few other carve-outs:
Federal protected classes include:
Race.
Color.
Religion or creed.
National origin or ancestry.
S-x (including gender, pregnancy, se-ual orientation, and gender identity).
Age.
Physical or mental disability.
Veteran status.
You better believe that Exxon does target some of these groups. Do you really think an autistic person with social disabilities won't progress further and further down the political rankings? Exxon does force people into medical retirement. When they PIP, they offer 3 months with pay if you sign the releases, but if you don't, you can bet that they will prep for a lawsuit, and how well do you think a jury of 12 will understand the culture and know who to believe? No lawyer is generally going to want to touch this because Exxon will bring the big lawyers. The person has to have a pretty rock solid case or be willing to fund the lawsuit themselves.
@OP, I know many people in your situation, and I don't think they signed NDAs on exit. I'm sure you can find witnesses if the judge allows.
Lol. This isnt going to hold up in court no matter the wishful thinking going on in this sub.
That’ll hold up in court 😂😂😂
How much is the legal opinion of @tel+1baN33Ng worth?