Oh -cyzr, you are such a petulant child. The poster you criticize actually schooled you. Wipe your tears and grow up. You lost the argument.
36 replies (most recent on top)
-blof, the previous poster had no question, yet aptly schooled you. It has been knowledged for years that useless laws to benefit snoflakes, crybabies, the entitled class and unscrupulous lawyers have been on the books. You had nothing new to add. Your point?
Very simple answer to your question, bqyb... Discrimination on the basis of age is ILLEGAL in the United States. Is it easy to prove? Answer: Hell no! Can a case of age discrimination be brought on Chevron by someone who "fits" the age class? Answer: Yes, but that person will need compelling evidence beyond the fact they are 50+ years of age. Believe me, Chevron knows the rules all too well, but among the many older folks who got the axe, there are more than a few who can easy win the case for age discrimination. All they need are years of work performance records, accolades they earned or were given by management, a proven track record of being top-tier compared to their peers, etc. These are the folks who will win a lawsuit, but surely Chevron will quickly settle handsomely. You have one year to bring a lawsuit, even if you've already signed the waiver and received your severance.
So anytime that there is an O&G industry downturn, Coal industry downturn, any energy industry, Nuclear, Defense, which is very common over, say, a generation, there will be a bunch of sour losers claiming that they should be able to sue? There's always the same stories and it's always the same. A bunch of older , more expensive folks get let go, a perfectly sound financial solution to being able to keep a lot of younger folks(who happen to be raising families, BTW) and they claim it's discrimination. The only difference now is there are more legal ramifications and more unscrupulous lawyers and ill-founded claims. If all of the people claiming that they were unfairly laid off( which is like, 90%) were allowed to seek legal retribution, there would be no companies in business anymore. A company should not be subject to lawsuits from laying off employees on the simple basis of the age of the employee alone. That makes no rational sense and is illogical. The employee should have to prove something else and show that they were mistreated by being laid off more than any other employee was and actually unfairly treated by comparison to others. Why should age only be a basis for one person being able to obtain a legal settlement, when there are countless OTHER employees who have suffered hardships ABOVE and BEYOND the ones suffered by the older employees in question, and they have no simple means to base a potential lawsuit on, aside from the frivolousness of it.
Two years and counting. No class actions yet. Only a few known individual cases filed and settled out of court. I don't think it gas to do with having balls or not. Each claimant's case is different in its facts and nuances. To file a class action requires the class members to have many facets in common.
Strength in numbers wins every time vs individual claims. Someone just needs to have the balls to do it
I'm surprised a high flying legal firm hasn't come on TV advertising to startup a class action. Maybe one such firm requires one plaintiff to step forward first. The first poster on this thread, -ovv seems he didn't need any class to join him. He went it alone and won big.
The lawsuits are piling up by the thousands. Chevron is paying off every week. If a class action lawsuit is organized, that will be difficult to settle.
Let me get this right, 7seh... You say that 7krd does not have a life anymore and needs to troll the layoffs board. So, I must assume YOU are still employed? Then WTF are you doing here on this layoff board? Jerk.
Chevron is so much better off without pompous A$$es like -7krd. Of course, it is sad and pathetic that 7krd does not have a life anymore and needs to troll the layoffs board. No wonder that pathetic sap was given the option to leave first before they cut him like the piece of deadwood that he is. The tree needed to grow strong without the extra useless load to carry. It is nice that the butthurt deadwood losers are getting cleaned out.
6hxk: Get your stories straight. First, the boom you talk about occurred in the early 80's. By the mid 80's (late 1985 to be exact), oil prices fell off the cliff. I should know, I was one of very few people hired in 1986 and didn't see many new faces until the mid 90's. Most, if not all, of the deadwood you speak about did not survive the numerous rounds of cuts from the late 80's to the late 90's - remember those?. Second, you quote "3 decades of rising prices". Anyone who has worked more than 10 yrs in the industry knows that the era of rising oil prices really didn't start until late 2003. I EOI'd last year because I couldn't stand working with pompous **ses like yourself anymore.
If you think you were discriminated against, file the suit. Otherwise, you all are coming across as b@$ches.
The truth is that many workers in their mid 50s were hired when the oil patch was booming in the mid 80s. Companies were hiring anyone who breathed. I have worked with many of these people. They are nice and well-meaning but in many cases under-motivated, marginally competent and lacking business acumen. They imagine they are more valuable than they actually are after watching business boom largely due to 3 decades of rising prices. They are a drag on our business at this point and need to go!
United Airlines already settled the dragged doctor case. We will never know for how much. Chevron has inflicted far worse damage to thousands of employees 50 and older.
@MVaqVFG-6cie, No dear, she is not in a kingdom, just the real world. Please stay in your delusional one where everyone gets a trophy and you will be happy. Have a nice day.
@5dgi, I think it's you who has missed the point entirely. Ignorance is bliss in your kingdom.
@5lug, It is clear that you missed the entire point of the previous poster. No one is denying that there is a law on the books about age discrimination. All that is in question is it's sensibility and absurdity. The point made here is there are the complainers and entitled and there are the people who understand that the world (or Chevron) does not owe them a living for life. A hard working productive member of society realizes that nothing is free and they cannot finagle a free ride out of an inconvenient situation such as a layoff. They do not look at a layoff as an opportunity to take advantage of the legal system and any freebees that they can get without working for them, they look at it as a chance to start a new career, retire early, and advance with all of the experience and talents that their prior employment has given them, not to mention a fat severance package. It's just a matter of what kind of person you are. If a person spends hours upon hours researching ways to legally take advantage of their employer instead of doing the job they were hired for, or even in addition to, I would not want them working for me or on my team. To each his own.
@5xrp- You speak nonsense. Age discrimination is prosecutable under the law. It has a definition in the law. Chevron is not ignorant of this fact, si they disguise the statistics to make it less obvious that the older employees are the principally affected ones in the last two years of layoffs. I studied the demographics from several waves of layoffs within my former BU. I noticed in many instances where a noticeable quantity of younger 20 and 30-something year olds were included in the "left standing" roster along with 40-somethings and 50+ employees. They BU did the rosters in a manner to make the age demographics look less discriminatory against the 50+ grouping. But, after we were all severed from the company, I was told that a fair number of the 20 and 30-something year olds were offered jobs that appeared suddenly out of thin air. The demographic reports that were filed as part of the WARN Act were the initial rosters, not the final results after many the younger groupings got a job handed to them after everyone else were laid off. You see @5xrp, that is called "stacking the deck", just one example of age discrimination. There are many tactics large company use. It does benefit a large company to get rid of its older and often-times, higher paid employees when it's in a crunch to save money. Business may be business, but doing business legally and ethically is enforceable under the law.
What many of you don't understand is that so called "age discrimination" is neither a "prosecutable" nor defensible action. There is no way to prove with certainty that a person was laid-off simply because of their age, regardless of their record. In addition, minimum age is a condition for employment, to delete it from consideration for layoffs is absurd. To have the concept of "age discrimination" outside of the convoluted workplace legal system in the US be legitimate would demand that each and every person beyond a certain age with a qualified record that is defined, is immune from lay-off and firing. Think about it. The law itself was generated for and by cry-babies, whiners and entitled people who think that they are entitled to a job for life simply because they were hired and do their job. For that reason, there really is no such thing as age-discrimination in the real world. There is only discrimination against certain employees who can not do their current job as well and/or as long into the future as others, no different than one who is simply incompetent. Age may prevent them from being able to, but being able to continue to work is directly work-related and should be a condition for employment, in a prudent society. When does an employer get to lay-off or fire an employee in their lifetime? Never? If so, we would not have businesses, jobs, employees, employers or an economy at all. What's going to be the next protected class, incompetents? Then we can have the cry-babies produce "Incompetency-discrimination" legislation. For the record, I am not a CVX employee, nor a manager, never was, never will be. Enough of the stupid paranoia posts. Sort of like "you're a paid shill" . Paid to post on layoffs forums? Get a clue, people. There are plenty of laws on the books which make no sense. You can find plenty of facts and figures and opinions on the internet. You will not find wisdom.
It's obvious to many that the Chevroids saying move on, you were well paid, are the immoral managers and HR business partners that Chevron hires and promotes. That is the Chevron Way. And it is why the stock is stagnant.
The last two posters fail to realize that age discrimination is ILLEGAL. The majority of the employees laid off over the last two years were over 50. Yes, many would take that as a personal injury, but on a case by case basis may not be so. Still, when you are 50+ years of age, it is much harder to find a job, well paid or not. That's just a fact. That is why there are anti-discrimination laws to protect this class. Bringing a lawsuit is not a petulant way of sticking it back to your firmar employer. It's called defending yourself against injustice. If you know you have a case, bring it on. Looks like the first poster on this thread did just that and was vindicated. Good for him.
Hey, you were paid more than fairly every day you worked at Chevron. What's the issue? Move on!
The issue for some people is that they feel their layoff was a personal injury. A law suit is a petulant way of striking back for the perceived insult. The truth, of course, is that layoffs and individual selections are business decisions. I never cease to be amazed at the number of employees who fail to grasp the basic notion that we operate a for profit business.
Chevron knows when to fight and when it's best to settle a lawsuit. Certainly if the details brought by a lawsuit at trial get out to the public or investors, it will quickly bargain to settle the case. Chevron knows that cases it will likely lose will lead to more claims by others and exposure in the media. It all comes down to keeping investors, its employees and the public in the dark as it flexes its might and stomps all over the little guy.
There are so many lawsuits vs. Chevron, settled well before trial, that investors will never the totals. CVX just keeps selling assets and paying the high dividends hoping to keep the empire from crumbling for the next generation.
3odk Exactly. It's a business. Get over it.
Wow @MVaqVFG-3odk
What you spelled out is exactly the reason we have the following:
Title VII
Americans with disabilities act
Age discrimination in Employment act
Fair labor standards act
Family and Medical leave act
Corporations have laws they have to follow too, and discriminating against someone based on their age, is ILLEGAL:
If Chevron knows it can let anyone go at will, why then does it emphasize so blatantly in the severance document (and in bold text) you must waive your right to sue for age discrimination? It's obvious that age discrimation was the main objective at play here? Even Ray Charles can see that.
I was also brain washed and married to chevron. Anyone that harmed chevron was a traitor in my mind until I was released by the company this year. It took some inner searching to realize this was a very unhealthy mindset and chevron was very surprised when I also hired an attorney and received a substantiaL settlement. It's business at the end of the day . my energy was channeled into putting together a successful case in lieu of past energy spent on Wheatstone, gorgon and others. Chevron also paid for my attorney fees as well. If I felt the layoffs were non biased and impartial I would have never gone this route but that was not the case and chevron knew it thus settled
This thread is such a joke. You can be a 1 every year for 30 years and get an R&A every week but it makes no difference if your position is eliminated. If the company no longer needs you, it is time to go. It is perfectly legal to get rid of higher paid employees and replace them with cheaper ones. A layoff means positions are eliminated. You were not sacked for incompetence. The business climate is poor. The only way to win an age discrimination suit is to prove to a judge that age was the dominant factor. You need secret recordings of the boss calling you old!
Chevron does not settle frivolous suits, they fight them. You will lose every time.
I applaud anyone who goes this route, but be warned, without irrefutable proof and clear evidence, it is a lost cause...costing you money.
Be sure to have a good lawyer, and a spotless record
Well done MVaqVFG-ovv !
I was sick of all the CVX BS, took my severance money, and didn't have the time or energy to fight Uncle Chevy.
Take a look at the typical Chevron employee, 1xnf. This guy represents the bullying and persecuting environment that Chevron is and -ovv fought and won against. Other victims of this company are not so lucky, but I am glad the guy filing the suit did so well and exposed CVX for what they really are. Its nice to make bigotry and bullying pay, even if justice can't be granted all the time. Well done ovv. You deserve the outcome.
1xnf. That was not necessary. He shared his experience with us honestly. Chevron should be upset then let him go. Sounds like he was a good employee.
I guess now we all regret you ever having been hired in the first place, gold stars for attendance notwithstanding.
I did. I was laid off in December 2015. I forewent signing the severance waiver documents and in January 2016 filed a lawsuit against Chevron for age discrimination. A long story short, it took 8 months but Chevron settled with me. I had compelling evidence that spanned years. Chevron knew they could not win in a jury trial, so they settled the case out of court. I am not permitted to disclose the settlement amount or name the law firm that represented me, but I can tell you it cost the company more money than if they would have kept me on for another 8 years. The settlement also paid my attorney's legal fees and expenses and Chevron ended up paying me my 1 year severance check with 8 months of 5% APR interest tacked on. I was unemployed all that time and I could not apply for unemployment, so I lived off my savings. Part of the settlement was that Chevron would not contest my application for unemployment benefits, which I exhausted the 6th month in March. I can tell you one thing, don't take for granted that Chevron will settle with anyone very easy. They will fight back hard. But if you have kept all your signed off PMP records with exemplary comments from supervisors, R&A awards, letters of appreciation from company management, consistent salary action records with 1 and 2+ rankings, stellar attendance history over the years and other proof of being a productive employee, these things will be your best defense. My case had some other considerations that merited a certain win for me. Each person considering an age discrimination lawsuit better be well prepared if you decide to fight your former employer.