This is the reason Intel is waving a nice severance in your face:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/06/portland_jury_awards_12_millio.html#incart_2box
11 replies (most recent on top)
"Intel will be hit with thousands of these types of lawsuits in the next 5 years. It's very clear to me as a lawyer that Intel believes itself to above the law. Intel clearly is hiding age discrimination as ERP, VSP and ISP. The juries will not be friendly to Intel."
If you have seen "Appendix A" provided with the separation agreement, it is apparent Intel is not hiding age discrimination and is willing to fight anyone about it. How many employee are in the DC office now, probably only one and a litany of CW paper pushers.
Like the hi tech anti competetive hiring suit, this will take some time before it blows up. But when it does, don't look directly at it, cuz it's gonna be huge
There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics. The statistics of the ISP can't be debated.. good luck for lawyers but that is why they make 7 figures at intel.
Forget good engineering, forget good technologist, forget good management.
Make sure you got good HR and Lawyer and you are golden for a few years as the CEO collecting a big golden parachute while you play kin with no clothes and ruin this great company!
Ok so you're saying do not ask your manager fo a raise to avoid being laid of. Got it!
Contact the attorney in the article. He's willing to take on Intel employees. I just talked with him.
This case wasn't even decided on its merits - the judge simply declared the company liable due to a failure to disclose an internal conversation about how to decrease its workforce - which the company claims didn't have anything to do with age and, thus, wasn't pertinent to the case. (But, obviously, to prove this they'd have to disclose information they don't want to disclose and they were summarily dinged for this choice.) The jury was instructed to decide nothing more than the amount of damages, not guilt.
Presumably, this judgment (for $1.2M, not $12M) will be promptly appealed.
Gross v. FBL allows companies to lay off their most expensive workers, even if that disproportionately affects older workers, if the stated goal is cost-cutting. As long as they lay off everyone who falls into that category, regardless of age. So it's not even illegal to do that, if that's what they want to do; they don't have to be secretive or clever about it.
I seriously doubt Intel was legally foolish enough to tell thousands of managers (or, rather, thousands of potential future witnesses for the plaintiff - if not future plaintiffs themselves) to give bonuses based on an age bias. Especially when it was so incredibly effective - and non-litigious - to offer them ERPs instead. The older employees left in droves.
don't expect anything. 1, you know intel email retention policy. Most emails on the subject have already been deleted. We also know that with mostly IC's being let go, that there are now too many manager for too few people. So managers will be next to go. By the time any lawsuit got rolling, the managers wouldn't be working there, so hard to find, and any manager who got a lawyer would be instructed to say he doesn't remember, because his testifying has nothing but a downside for him.
So in short. There is no evidence, and will be no evidence.
Also, look at the wage fixing settlement that just came around... that was over 10 years ago, and we only got a few thousand out of it. So don't expect anything any time soon.
The statistics from exhibit A are rather interesting. The question is were level 4 stock consiously given thru age description by mangers
A more probably angle would be if enough fired mangers would come forth and describe the compensation philosophy with enough consistency that clearly will show that stock part has an inherent age bias and that by using stock intel was willfully doing age bases.
I think it is a viable case worth millions or more given Intel's huge and deep pockets
DO IT!!!
I agree with @I1YNvvS-lnr.
There are already major efforts to prepare cases already.
Age discrimination - yes
Performance related - most of them no
Plan to execute ERP/VSP/ISP - in the making for several years already
I am sure once court will order to disclose internal email correspondence - BK and his EVPs will feel the heat.
Intel will be hit with thousands of these types of lawsuits in the next 5 years. It's very clear to me as a lawyer that Intel believes itself to above the law. Intel clearly is hiding age discrimination as ERP, VSP and ISP. The juries will not be friendly to Intel.
Good example!