#ageism

I agree with some of your comments; however, people over 60 do not qualify for Social Security until 65 unless they take reductions, and they also do not qualify for Medicare benefits until 65. Therefore, I think it’s unfair to expect older workers to give up an income for someone else. Everyone is in the same boat, dealing with different life circumstances, and we all have to make very difficult decisions. Having to sacrifice for "younger" employees should not be another factor in that decision.

I have been working all my life, and I don't really have any retirement funds. I receive $1,350 per month from Social Security and $2,000 per month from Centene. Meanwhile, I pay $3,500 monthly for my mortgage, plus car insurance, electricity, water, food, etc. Each month I short, so I must withdraw money from my retirement account to make my monthly payments. Every time I do, I get hit with a stiff penalty of $400 to $600 just to access my own funds.

They are asking us (the foot soldiers) to retire, but the fat cats are not required to do so. Sarah London gets $20 million per year plus bonuses, commissions, and other perks. I work from home, and back when Neidorff was the CEO, we got paid for our internet, received bonuses, and earned salaries for hitting our monthly goals.

I am not going to retire voluntarily—they must fire me! I am a good, responsible worker with an excellent education and extensive experience. I bring much more than just labor to the company: I bring ethics, the satisfaction of a job well done, and a genuine appreciation for our members. Get out the fat cats who are destroying Centene!

In the last several layoffs, our team lost everybody above 50, and even two people in their late 40s. The rest of us are all here. I don't know if this is the case company-wide, but it certainly left a bad taste in my mouth. Really shows us there's no future for any of us here once we hit a certain age.

No job security, age bias, toxic culture. What's not to love? Can't wait to see what the coming weeks/months bring to the list.

Several people on our sales team were surplussed on Wednesday-all had good numbers compared to those of use that weren't impacted, our sales manager said that the selection process was above his pay grade and that she had no say what-so-ever in the selection, one of the sellers let go was the oldest person on the team, a white guy who was crushing it this year and had the highest production on the team, the other two who were let go were also older members of the team , on e them was third on the team in production. Those of us left are newer to the team and are glad we were spared but are trying to understand how this selection process works

Windsor Locks got hit this week. Mostly older employees. Seems that Raytheon does not like to employ anyone over 50.

Windsor Locks got hit this week. Mostly older employees. Seems that Raytheon does not like to employ anyone over

I feel sad, guilty and burdened. I didn’t choose HR as a career to ruin lives or to help a greedy, mismanaged company do bad deeds. This is not meant to scare and I am fearful to post as I am under NDA but I need to help if I can. In a few weeks there will be another layoff. If you are over 50, overpaid, under performing, or your function can be AI replaced you are at risk. Please be prepared. I will not log into this site again, and I will not be able to provide any more information. I am praying for all of you who may be impacted.

Why is it always the older, experienced, and high performing employees are shown the door? We have plenty of those who do nothing all day and yet they stay. Why? How come that keeps happening?

103 million verdict cause Liberty Mutual laid off due to a ge and forced some to retire. Got rid of good and loyal workers. Read article sounds like what happened to us.

Just had manager discussion and was notified last day will be July 2. Normal cr-ppy US severance of 3 months. Went through the normal we're not picking people because of age and the 3 others RA'd in a small team were all of 45. One people was listed who is not being RA'd in that same age range... so, definitely older, more expensive people are being targeted.

Have you, or anyone you know, experienced age discrimination at RA? What were the circumstances? i.e. passed over for promotion, pressured to retire, no response to job applications....

The company is shrinking and is younger people need the roles to open up to survive. The pension doesn’t grow that much after 55 and certainly after 60 it really slows down. Do us a favor and help us get to 55.

Does anyone know of a ki-ler lawyer in austin, tx area to take on age targeted LR cases in latest layoffs?

The Linked in posts all seem to follow this format. "After X years at Fidelity my role has been eliminated, but I am so grateful, humbled....blah blah for a couple of paragraphs... I've had the privilege...I never felt so valued...as a move on to my next chapter, I do so with immense gratitude and respect for everything that Fidelity stands for"

Then on the opposite spectrum I see recent graduates posting about how excited they are to share that they accepted an offer at Fidelity in some customer service role.

Is there some template that Fidelity is suggesting that people use?

It also feels like Fidelity does not want older people in the organization.

The orgs in MT has average ahe around 50+.
And 20-30% folks are greater than 60.

Do you think att has to get rid off folks who are 60+

What's going on here? Is this just my group or a wider pattern?

It's obvious that performance wasn't criteria for this round, so I'm wondering what was. Judging by the ages of those affected, I'm guessing pay played a significant role in determining who to put on the list. I could be wrong, though, and it could be something else entirely.

I lost count of how many layoffs have happened in the past 8 years. Today's is the worst. Our already skeleton crew was cut in half. All of us are already over worked. This place is going to be a disgruntled sweatshop in day or 2. And they layed of the folks with a future. 3 of us are close to retirement and informed our managers that a layoff would be welcome for us. Nope, they skipped us and went for younger generation. Who is going to carry this company forward? NetApp... where stupid thrives.

But I am noticing that those affected are mostly 50+. Not a good look for the company.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-need-younger-people-inside-growing-fear-age-att-jayson-gnall-7dzuc/

TRend at Bnym, and it’s not subtle.
More and more employees are being “RIF’d” under the disguise of performance issues — even when their track record is spotless. Let’s call it what it is: ageism and salary targeting.Batman and Robin don’t want to admit they’re cutting older, higher‑paid workers, so they hide behind manipulated evaluations and vague buzzwords like “not agile enough,” “not aligned with culture,” or “needs more energy.” It’s a cost‑cutting strategy dressed up as performance management.
This isn’t about merit.
It’s about money, age, and who they think they can push out quietly.
I should have fought your bullsh-t but didn't. I hope others do and this POS company gets what they deserve.

Make of that what you will, but it’s getting harder not to notice certain patterns.

I was laid off after more than 15 years at Wells. I survived the previous rounds, but I was finally caught up. Our CEO made it no secret this would continue through 2026. Each round I survived I had a little hope. Make no mistake it doesn't matter if you are a top performer or not. I have seen top talent just be let go over and over. It will continue.

I knew this might be a possibility, so I have been looking for jobs for months. It's been scary with this economy and job market. No bites. Had resume reviewed, joined job boards, joined talent agency/groups. The only thing that has come up is short term contracts but no real bites. Ageism is real and it's scary as he-l. All I can do is keep trying, take some time to up-skill and get some additional feathers in my resume cap, but I would be lying if I didn't say this job market is brutal.

Make no mistake. Wells doesn't care about the loyalty and commitment you have shown to them no matter how many years of service. Your performance isn't a guarantee either. Over the years I have jumped when Wells said jump. Traveled more than I can remember, worked nights, worked weekends, putting in 50-hour work weeks. Been a repeated top performer. They expect loyalty from you but don't expect loyalty in return. Don't be fooled. None if it matters in the end. You are just a number to Wells.

We’ve angered and alienated the older workforce, which incentivized them to not give a flying f about knowledge sharing and transfer with younger workers.

The younger workers have no hope or real path forward outside of nepotism and generational wealth that boosts them up despite the sh-t we’re all sinking in.

The rich get richer and the AI/offshoring effort booms…

I am over 50 and considering applying at Humana but like many companies that seem to have become ageist and removing older folks first, I am concerned about applying here.

To those of you that either still work there or those who used to work there think they may have been discriminated against because of their age, I repeat tje same question as in the post title.

Is Humana an ageist company?

Thanks in advance.

This comment from a Fidelity spokesperson gives me pause and makes me wonder what the median age of those impact by the RIF is.

I’m 52 and was laid off last week. If you were laid off, share your age below.

“These changes are about getting the right combination of skills in place for where Fidelity is headed, including creating more room for early-career, hands-on engineering roles and streamlining senior leadership layers,” a company spokesperson said in a statement. https://www.masslive.com/business/2026/05/fidelity-to-lay-off-800-workers-but-hire-thousands-more.html

Meta got sued for age discrimination. See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/called-them-dinosaurs-lawsuits-began-ai-bias-hiring-more-vanderburg-wff9c.

The data cited in the lawsuit is stark:

Employees over 40 were 1.5x more likely to be laid off than employees under 40.
Employees over 50 were 2.5x more likely to be terminated than their younger colleagues.

The workforce reductions last December appeared to disproportionately affect employees with older ages. Is there any public data support my observation?

If you are fired, please do the below analysis on this doc you get: Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)

If you are older than 40 (or 50?) years old, you should get a OWBPA document (it shows ages and job titles of the fired people). MAKE SURE to save it locally immediately!!! If you view it and then leave the page, the document will show as read and you may not be able to access it again (at least that happened to me). You may be able to get GEMINI to help you do the analysis (turn AI against big dirty red!).

My guess it would be eye opening (to a judge:)) to see the breakout/comparison of job title and age for higher paying jobs (engineering and technology) versus job titles and age for lower paying jobs (help desk, admin assistants, etc..). Would not be surprising to see this output - just as an example of what might be uncovered: 50 people that are 55+ years old fired and all in high paying jobs.... and then another 50 people that are 20 to 35 years old and all in lower paying jobs (and MUCH easier to backfill or put a contractor in later). If you just looked at ages, you would say it looks ok. But, if you included wages, AND job titles, you would see a definite bias in the example.

Seems that employees over 50 were the largest group impacted today. Experience means nothing, loyalty means nothing, dedication means nothing. With age comes experience and sadly with longevity comes a higher expense.

What is needed is a class action suit against the company for age discrimination.

Four people, all in their 50s and above. I'll be honest, I have no idea how we're supposed to continue without them, especially since we were stretched thin as it is.

G6,5,4 - majority are youngsters getting laid off. Runway if you are young this is a company for dinosaurs

These people keep getting spared every layoff and they're the ones at the water cooler, long overdue for retirement. They are good at showing up on time in a crisply ironed shirt with a positive attitude, much like the old IBMers. But as far as carrying the load when half the team gets axed (strictly according to their manager's own specific preferences and prejudices), the work output won't scale accordingly. They have one speed. The speed of every telephone company. Because every telephone company is comprised of them.

Once you hit a certain age, they start looking for reasons to push you out. I've seen it happen to three people in my team. They treat older workers like garbage.

Especially the 50+ crowd. Then maybe a few slackers. But management/leadership titles? Absolutely safe.

Confirmed 5% RIF including Dinosaurs who would be forced to retire.

Is it true that at Google employees over 50 are viewed as not being in touch with technology and thus, forced out or laid off? I’ve heard this affects women more.

Too many reports of people 55+ being let go in disproportionate numbers.

Anyone from the previous round willing to share their age and salary grade? Curious if the same age groups or grades are being targeted in the cuts rumored for today.