Sure does seem that a lot of the people laid off were over 50, long-term employees. I know some were told their job was being downgraded. Sure does fit the definition of age discrimination.
If an employer says that your job is being eliminated but then hires a younger employee to work in the same capacity as you only with a different title, this is possible evidence of age discrimination - from website of law firm that handles age discrimination.
i thought arbitration was now considered null and void with employer offers, at least in california
You and many others wish! One thing Mattel looooves to pay for is lawyers. No chance in he-l you’re winning this one.
Unfortunately it’s not age discrimination if you lay off based on salary which older people tend to have. Very very hard to prove this, and if you are over 40 when laid off you get a sheet showing all ages and positions of people laid off. Companies always do a good job of including a mix so as to avoid this.
It is most definitely discrimination as it states in the law for age alone. The problem is, you signed on the dotted line stating you give up all rights by being employed and they can fire you for anything, you accept a package and when is the last time Mattel got sued for it? No chance sorry.
Are they still giving out severance and all the services? If you sign off on the package you have no rights and its hard to prove because lets face it, you've been there for years, you probably made a decent salary and they can cut you and replace you with 2 startups making half of what you made combined. Most businesses function that way unless you climb high enough on the corporate ladder. which unfortunately you didn't
The annoying parts is this company will just go into arbitration and the package is supposed to cover it.
Besides have you seen the class action against even bigger companies? After the layers get their cut, 20 chumps get a measly sum.