Thread regarding Gulfstream Aerospace layoffs

I am sure that anyone who is thinking of suing already has a lawyer lined up (I'm not - I can't afford it and the "but-for" standard is hard to prove even though I'm 100% sure I'd still have a job if I were 30). But if you are thinking about it and you don't have a lawyer, the reason to stay away from ones in Savannah is its an old boys club. GAC lawyers, and the litigators in Savannah all know each other and don't like to fight each other. An Atlanta attorney is not likely to run into a GAC lawyer on the golf course.

There may be no workplace that is paradise but after working at GAC for a decade my new job sure seems like it. I feel like I have just recovered from Stockholm Syndrome.

Some may think they will be able to get more $ that GAC offered but to me the sooner I finish my relationship with them the better for me to start a new chapter. Is it hard? Yes it is. Is it worth my time and money? Not sure it is. I have good and not so good experiences with Gulfstream but I decided to move on and keep the good memories. Whatever you decide to do I wish it works to your advantage, for me this chapter of my life will be closed once I receive my severance and keep moving forward to a new venture.

I understand why some are thinking about an age discrimination lawsuit. A friend mentioned it to me. A few things to think about:
Your performance reviews will be scrutinized.
Is it worth the money? Your lawyer fees may be more than what Gulfstream would pay out.

The talk of Savannah lawyers being afraid of Gulfstream — and having to use Atlanta lawyers – seems silly to me. Atlanta does not necessarily have better employment law attorneys than Savannah (it has more lawyers, yes), and vice versa. Just like a Harvard law grad isn't necessarily better than someone who went to the University of San Diego or anywhere else.

I was caught up in the RIFs May 1 and am dealing with it. I am glad I worked at Gulfstream for several years. I met – and worked with — many awesome folks there. That being said, the place is not paradise by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think such a workplace exists.

For those that decide to sue, here is what your attorney and Gulfstream both know. Gulfstream does not want this in front of a jury because on that jury will be someone who was laid off recently or knows someone who was laid off recently. There will also be people over 40 who will empathize with you and see it for what it is - a greedy corporation who dumped long time loyal employees on the street while still making a nice profit. Good luck to all whatever you decide.

That's a good question, the H1B one...

How many employees with an H-1B visa were laid off?

Same here with unemployment.

Does anyone keep getting the message from unemployment saying you’re not allowed to claim this weeks unemployment I was told Gulfstream Claimed the first two weeks and after that we have to

Talk about age discrimination? How about race. I sat and listened to a round table conversation to which an ethnic member of a team was let go after being quantified as a "little black boy" in front of his team. Mgr knows he said it. His team knows he said it. That wasn't the only instance. I would love the EEOC to come in to conduct a blind investigation. I will talk. Oh yes, I will talk. Not to some fake ethics thing but to an EEOC Investigator – I will talk with evidence, dates, times. I am neutral in this, feel it is my civic honor in the name of justice. He knows who he is. Bow your head and admit your bigoted wrong doing to an HR rep, please Sir and bow out. This is 2020 and the term "little black boy" belongs in your defunct diary from 200+ years ago, Sir. Equal. Opportunity. Employer.

Love the math here being used against GAC. Didn't anyone in HR put a spreadsheet together to make sure they weren't vulnerable to age discrimination suits? Did they really think those of us who were fired are STUPID? Guess not, or maybe they were hoping we'd all rollover and take the package up our asses.

Well, I made it through every lay-off since the mid 2000s with flying colors. I was working harder and smarter than the guys younger than 30. But I was also more expensive I’m sure, by a good deal I’m sure. In my job category people older than 40 were 500% more likely to get the axe. If being older than 40 makes me an over the hill slacker, I’d shut the eff up. But I know I was contributing as much or more than ever. It’s just cheaper to pay a 27 year old when MB wants to pay 50% what they pay me. Best of luck to the kids.

I think the way they do it is they look at the age curve, and if the layoff curve is similar they're OK. So to make it simple, suppose a group has 10 people under 30, 20 between 30 & 40 and 50 over 40. So 62.5% of the team is over 40. If 55% of the layoffs in that group are over 40, then the older employees are actually under-represented in the layoff pool, even though over half of the people laid off were over 40.

Well that’s not really how layoffs work. There is some hints of “picking teams” but you Lay-off areas where the business is slower/less relevant to revenue. And hey if you can cut the guy whose slacked off the last few years and trying to coast into retirement and keep 2 cheaper more ambitious folks for a longer term investment then why not?

@Not how layoffs work poster: I don’t think you understood my post. Pick each area that was laid off and group the people in similar jobs. No special consideration for age / years of experience. GAC should have kept the best people. Would love to see someone look at the list and agree that is what was done. Your comments are cherry picking and assuming that senior people are by nature slackers. In my scenario, slackers should go regardless of age. Guessing you are “younger”. Wait until you are older and get discriminated against. Let’s see how fair you think it is.

Well that’s not really how layoffs work. There is some hints of “picking teams” but you Lay-off areas where the business is slower/less relevant to revenue. And hey if you can cut the guy whose slacked off the last few years and trying to coast into retirement and keep 2 cheaper more ambitious folks for a longer term investment then why not?

What firm is handling the case?

I don’t think they are trying very hard to hide it. They just don’t think anyone will sue. Take all the people that had been there say 20+ years. Am I to believe that EVERY single person they kept in a similar job was better than the senior people that were let go? I am not talking about giving preferential treatment to the more senior folks. Head to head comparison. Think of it like picking a team. For each similar position, put everyone who was kept on the left side and everyone who was let go on the right. So, every person on the left would get picked before ANYONE on the right? No way. I don’t believe anyone could say yes with a straight face.

Wow...site messed up my post above! Trying again.

Within one particular job title, in those less than 40 years old only 10% were fired It was 34% for the older guys. That seems like pretty clear cut age discrimination to me.