3M To Pay $3 Million To Settle Age Discrimination Claim
- Article Information
- Published on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 23:23
3M has agreed to pay $3 million to a class of former employees to resolve a nationwide age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC alleged that “3M unlawfully laid off hundreds of employees over the age of 45 during a series of reductions in force (RIFs) from July 1, 2003 through Dec. 31, 2006.” Further, according to the EEOC, the layoff included many highly paid older employees, including the level of director. The EEOC also alleged that 3M did not provide older employees with leadership training and laid off older workers to make way for younger workers. The EEOC’s investigation revealed an e-mail from a 3M employee describing then-CEO Jim McNerney’s “vision for leadership development” as “we should be developing 30 year olds with General Manager potential” and “He wants us to tap into the youth as participants in the leadership development.” Age discrimination is prohibited pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which protects people aged 40 and older from employment discrimination. Pending approval, 3M will pay $3 million in monetary relief to approximately 290 former employees. In addition, 3M will implement a review process for termination decisions and training on how to prevent age bias. 3M will report on its compliance, provide RIF information to the EEOC over the next three years, and post a notice about the settlement. Michael Baldonado, district director of the EEOC’s San Francisco office, stated that “The law requires employers to base employment decisions upon each person’s strengths and talents instead of relying upon generalized assumptions calculated around an employee’s age…This consent decree is the result of productive and thoughtful negotiations with 3M. In addition to providing meaningful monetary relief for hundreds of former 3M employees, the settlement contains important preventive measures, including company policy changes and training designed to provide older people equal opportunities in the workplace.” Read More.
AT&T Settles Age Discrimination Lawsuit Filed by EEOC
- Article Information
- Published on Thursday, 27 October 2011 16:52
AT&T has agreed to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC charged that AT&T discriminated against a class of retired AT&T workers by denying them the opportunity for reemployment because they retired under certain early retirement programs. The EEOC claimed that this practice violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, individuals who participated in the early retirement programs were restricted by AT&T from being reemployed or engaged as contractors because they took one of these retirement packages. The EEOC filed suit after first trying to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. AT&T denied the allegations in the lawsuit, but agreed to change its policies related to the reemployment of retirees. The consent decree prohibits AT&T from maintaining any policy that excludes from reemployment employees who left AT&T under one of the early retirement plans. The decree also prohibits AT&T from requiring a different process for selecting retirees than any other former employees. Anna M. Pohl, an EEOC trial attorney, commented that “Many former employees who took an early retirement package years ago still need work, and will now have an equal opportunity to apply for new jobs at AT&T…AT&T is to be commended for changing its policies and working with the EEOC to resolve this case.” Read More.
Cavalier Telephone Will Pay $1 Million to Settle Age Discrimination Lawsuit
- Article Information
- Published on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 08:55
Cavalier Telephone Company Inc. has agreed to pay $1 million to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). According to the EEOC, from around May 2003 and continuing, Cavalier Telephone’s mid-Atlantic region engaged in a practice of not hiring applicants age 40 or older for sales account executive positions. The EEOC alleged that Cavalier indicated both verbally and in writing that the company was looking for candidates for its sales positions who were “recent college graduates,” and in their “early 20s or 30s.” Cavalier also allegedly offered its employees a $500 bonus for referral of a “friend’s younger brother and sister.” The EEOC charged that as a result of the recruitment and hiring practices, Cavalier’s work force underrepresented people age 40 or older in its sales positions within its
mid-Atlantic region. The EEOC’s complaint also included the claims of two individuals who claimed that they were retaliated against for complaining about the alleged discriminatory hiring practices. According to the EEOC, one of the demoted employees resigned from Cavalier while the other continued to complain about age discrimination, but was eventually terminated. EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez commented that “Cavalier Telephone’s hiring practices penalized older applicants simply because of their age and that is illegal...I am pleased that we were able to work out a resolution of this suit that provides relief for the victims of discrimination and brings the company’s practices into compliance with the law.” Read More.
College Sued for Alleged Age Discrimination
- Article Information
- Published on Thursday, 19 April 2012 02:14
According to a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Marymount Manhattan College refused to hire a choreography instructor for a tenure-track assistant professorship due to her age. Marymount is a private liberal arts college in New York City. The EEOC has charged that Marymount initially selected a 64-year-old choreography instructor and two other applicants as finalists for an assistant professorship in dance composition. After determining that the 64-year-old was the leading candidate, Marymount’s search committee allegedly expanded its search to include a less qualified, 37-year-old applicant as a fourth finalist because it considered her to be “at the right moment of her life for commitment to a full-time position.” The EEOC alleges that Marymount passed over the 64-year-old applicant and instead hired the 37-year-old applicant because of age. Age discrimination against employees and job applicants who are age 40 or older is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Elizabeth Grossman, regional attorney of the EEOC’s New York District Office, commented that “Older workers have the right to be evaluated based on their abilities and not based on their age. The EEOC is committed to combating bias against older workers in all phases of employment and in all types of employment ettings.” Read More.
Court Denies Plaintiff/Employee’s Request for Information About Co-Workers
- Article Information
- Published on Monday, 18 July 2011 19:53
Timothy Joyce filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Life Technologies Corporation (LTC) for wrongful termination alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of his age and then retaliated against because he complained about such discrimination. During the discovery phase of his lawsuit, Joyce successfully moved to compel further answers to special interrogatories which sought detailed information about other employees/former employees. Joyce argued that he needed this information to prove his disparate treatment and disparate impact claims. LTC refused to answer the questions arguing that the information sought by the plaintiff was irrelevant, unlikely to lead to admissible evidence, and infringed upon the privacy rights of the third party employees/former employees. On appeal from an order requiring LTC to answer the questions, the appellate court concluded that the “trial court did not adequately consider, or provide procedural protections for, the
substantial privacy interests of the third party employees/former employees. Accordingly, we will issue a peremptory writ directing the court to vacate its order compelling further answers to the challenged interrogatories and reconsider Joyce’s motion in light of our opinion.” In his complaint, Joyce, who is a patent attorney, alleged that his supervisor instructed him to “manage out” two women who were over forty by documenting them with negative performance reviews, but he refused to do so. Subsequently, Joyce was allegedly told by a co-worker that he was on a “hit list” for termination and that performance issues would be fabricated. Eventually Joyce was terminated for alleged “poor performance.” Read More.
More Articles...
- EEOC Alleges Texas Roadhouse Restaurant Chain Refused to Hire Older Workers Nationwide
- EEOC Issues FAQs on Age Discrimination Final Regulation
- EEOC Issues Final Rule on Age Discrimination
- EEOC Obtains Record Amount of Relief in 2011
- EEOC Offers Employers Opportunity to Comment on Significant Regulations
- EEOC to Explore Impact of Economy on Older Workers
- EEOC Will Announce Multi-Million Dollar Settlement for Age Discrimination
- Employer Must Pay More Than $467,000 For Age Discrimination
- Employers Continue to Face Difficult and Costly Litigation
- In Age Discrimination Case Proper Inquiry Is Whether Co-Worker Receiving More Lenient Treatment Is “Significantly Younger”
- Law Firm Settles Age Discrimination Claim
- Media Giant Must Provide Comprehensive Employee List In Age Bias Case
- Minnesota State Agencies Settle EEOC Age Bias Suits for Over $574,000
- Senators Introduce Bill to Overturn U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision on Age Discrimination
- Shareholder's Control Over Employees is Not Determinative of Employer Status
