I am over 50 and was recently laid off. During one of my conversations with HR, they said if I am over 50 and had been with CITI more than 5 years, my severance would had been a full year. I can’t find any information related to this. Does anyone know?
11 replies (most recent on top)
@123 nothing really. You can maintain insurance benefits although at a rate where Citi does not contribute. Probably cheaper getting insurance on your own. And you can access your 401 if you are over 55 without penalty. But it's basically quitting. There is no pension at Citi. "retiring" is quitting without saying I quit.
What is the advantage of retiring early with rule 56?
two weeks for every year, caps at one year. So if you had been @ Citi for 30 years, you would not get 60 weeks, you would cap out at 52. You are eligible for 10 weeks with only 5 years at Citi.
@da it's not much different than quitting. You have access to some benefits although not at a reduced price and you can access some retirement accounts without penalty. It does not mean severance outside of what you would normally get if you got laid off.
Wait, what?!? I’m looking for this offering.
So if you’re 55 or older and your years of service (5 years or more) = or > than 60, you eligible for retirement. This would be a leave, no severance offered? or is a severance offered?
If no severance is offered, then how is it any different than just quitting?
I’m looking through the handbook and I don’t see anything in print that says anything either way.
I think you are confused with the rule of 55. It allows you to retire.
I am over 50 and have more than 5 years service, it is only 2 weeks for each year.
You may be confusing what you heard with the rule of 60: if you are at least 50 and your years of service plus age take you to 60, you are eligible to retire early.
Did you review the document?
Wrong. It's 2 weeks for every year. Making it aged based would be discriminatory against others who aren't 50. Are you sure that's what HR said?
Does not sound right. That’s weird to have an age component and would open the firm to many issues / lawsuits
2 weeks for every year
This does not sound accurate. i know someone who was laid off and over 50 and did not get a year severance.