The performance based layoff was not unbiased. It desciminates against older workers. This is why:it is a well known fact that as you age your brain does not function as well as when you were a decade or so younger. An older employee has to compete against younger ones. Aging is a disease. During the stock level assignment stage of the focal process only competitive results are considered and there are no considerations of issues such as prolonged illness like cancer treatments, illness or family tram antic events. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the average software engineer age on an Intel engineer is 37 and the laid off worker is 47+. This was based on the full disclosure that intel is required to supply. So I would like to see if Intel is inadvertently violating ADEA/OWBPA. How can I do this? Would anyone like to join me?
52 replies (most recent on top)
I am asking if Intel has a right to ban you from ever working at Intel for a lifetime. If no crime or evidence was ever present.
And being a contingent worker I was wrongfully terminated for fighting . I was not or is there proof of me fighting. And I had witness and cops came out and found no evidence.
Perhaps NFL players loose physical capacity with age. Tech employees do not perform physical work and experience is a major determining factor in their work. Experience comes with age. Even in the NFL, experience counts big. Older players become coaches and utilize their experience in a non-physical manner. Sorry, however your analogy is out of place.
Though ex-intel laid off in 2005. Article posted 5 years ago.
http://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/labor-and-employment/san-jose-employment-discrimination-lawyers-intel-working-with-eeoc-on-settlement-8780/
From another thread on this site:
It is pretty simple really - did Intel break the law ? ( which it has done many times in the past in other settings ). This is purely a business issue -- just as Intel treated the layoffs as purely business, so the courts need determine if the law was violated and if so, there is usually restitution. Intel was extremely dispassionate about the layoffs - and so treat Intel exactly the same ! Intel did not take into account the pain and suffering it has caused in cutting short deserving careers and so Intel needs receive no consideration for its own pain and suffering that the courts may return. Having said this - BK and co. continue to milk the system for all it is worth - they'll likely laugh all the way to the bank having 'gotten theirs' - if they don't do so already.
Also as another post noted - you never waive your civil rights, no matter how many papers are thrust in front of you to sign. If someone can indeed retain a good lawyer and let us know on this site and what we can do. I would suggest proceeding with care and get the best legal representation - there is past precedent as another poster noted with the Mercury news reference from the Intel layoff of 2006
there is a group of ex-intel from the 2015 and 2016 layoffs, The Intel Eliminati: pdx-tie.org. It was started from Oregon employees, but any ex-intel from the layoffs are encouraged to join this support group. lots of good help/support/advice there: freshly laid-off employees sharing process, legal action, training and education, etc.
first step is to file an age discrimination complaint with your local labor bureau and if you don't have one, you can file directly with the EEOC...most states have a local bureau. Local bureaus have agreements with the EEOC to fund and automatically file EEOC claim for substantiated claims. If you get on the official Eliminati Google share site, there is an example of the complaint that can be used with proper legal speak, esp for those compensation-based age discriminated against. Don't sit back and say your're in if there is a class-action, help out and file your complaint...it is easy and free. The more complaints they receive the more attention we get and is something that they cannot ignore.
also, stop circulating misinformation about the separation agreement you received. you agreed not cannot sue and receive monetary compensation, but you never give up your civil rights and that is what this complaint is about. this agreement is standard practice in a layoff but lawyers will tell you it doesn't mater and that the agreement can be null esp if you signed under any type of duress. lawyers are not worried about these agreements...just file and get the ball rolling because there is a time limit of when you can file...for EEOC is is 300 days from the last alleged violation (mostly in our cases it is last day of employment), and each state bureau have different days, like for Oregon BOLI it is 1 year from alleged. for any Oregon employees from the July 2015 layoff you have pasted your complaint deadline unless you extended your termination date. Look up your state rules on filing a civil rights claim. A separation agreement does not make you give up your civil rights and it even says so in the agreement. If you have a complaint, first join the Intel Eliminati to save you time researching because many of us have been down the road already and shared in this forum.
@qzcr: your idea is good. Set up a website where we can maybe input our WWIDs along with our age, email, and whether we were ISP, VSP, ERP/VSP, ERP/ISP, or ERP? Or maybe we need the lawyer first...someone must know how to do this. Who were the lawyers that did the anti-trust lawsuit? They must know who best to take this on....like the State stepped in to file the Trade Act paperwork to the Feds, there must be some action being done.
As someone else pointed out earlier, it is simple to show what population was targeted. The several people that I talked to where all close to the age of 50 and above. Thanks to the property of gaussian distributions, every population in this case is defined simply by two parameters namely mean and standard deviation. Comparing the group that got targeted with the general sample and with a sample of those close to 50 will clearly make the case they were targeted. The argument that they can use something else and it just turns out to be correlated suggests most everyone at 50 will by definition be a "poor contributor"--this will not hold. In fact we can probably show the targeted group performed well based on their feedbacks and the money they saved that year (hence the use of stock level). The reason that everyone was not as impacted is because each group's VP had a choice to use this targeting mechanism or opt out. Many VPs closer to the factories opted out and did not use this "people movement" strategy. I signed but I am in. Since the signing was offered under duress it will not hold up through litigation. If this group gets together our first data point is ourselves. We can start calculating the age factor. As in any crime, there is a dead body. We can smell it, but we have to dig. The most important thing is to find an experienced lawyer who has done this before and won against big corporations. We can probably do a group search and compare notes. If we don't do this Intel will continue down this path and repeat this sort of behavior with other employees. In actuality it is good for Intel in the long-term that we change things.
If you all agree, then the first two steps to kick off things are quite simple:
- Each person submit under user 'anonymous' their approximate age category upon being targeted. You can indicate your age as A) below 40, B) 40-45 C) 46-50 D) 51-55 E) Over 55 to be safe.
For example during 2015, I fit in the D category. I knew four others and they where also mostly centered in the D category.
- Whoever knows a good lawyer that has successfully represented against Intel can communicate they found someone. At this point I don't recommend posting the lawyer's names here. But we can just say that we found someone.
The other steps will naturally follow.
That statistics from the exhibit are clear of the bias. I am looking forward to a five figure settlement check from intel shortly.
BTW exercise for body and mind can cheat time, but not if you at white and obese.
I did not sign the paperwork, please let me know if this is happening and I will send you my information.
So are we filing a class lawsuit guys? I am ready to support
Seems standard process Intel targets people by portraying them as incompetent then give poor ratings as a set up for termination.
Exhibit A, everyone gets it and you can see for yourself the statistics.
But if you sign for the money you pretty much sign away all your rights..
Lawyers have it all worked out!
the way to go about this is to complain to the EECO and first get the "no-rehire" policy removed.
Then other things will automatically be reviewed and investigated by the EECO.
In addition to many things mentioned earlier, the "no-rehire" policy is definitely a cause to get the EECO involved.
Really guys? You'd rather:
A) go to court and maybe get $5000 in 3-4 years and make some lawyer millions and still not have a job.
or
B) sign the waiver and get paid severance for time in service?
I know which one I'll be doing.
The assumption made in this thread and many others is that older employees do not contribute equal or greater than their younger counterparts. My experience is that younger engineers get their ques from the more experienced. It is very concerning to see so much experience let go.
I am ready to support if we decide to file a lawsuit
2 doesn't prove they used age as a decision factor. It proves they used something that correlates with age as a decision factor.
A few points:
-
Since the agreements were signed under duress, it may not hold up in court.
-
It is actually simple to show Intel did use age as a decision factor, just calculate the average and standard deviation for the ages of those who were targeted and compare that to (1) general intel population age average and standard deviation. From the several people that I talked to they were all closer to the 50 age as average. The evidence can not be buried and is easy to prove.
-
There must be a law against using something other than performance rating (stocks) that is not considered a performance metric in the employee manual and call it meritocracy.
Ultimately if we don't do anything it is sending the message that if we are around 50 and still saving the company millions in ROI, having excellent customer focal feedbacks, getting a successful review, it is ok to get rid of us using sneaky age targeting and violating ethical and legal codes. I don't think this is good for Intel in the long-term.
According to the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN") under the state of California:
"Per Chapter 4, Part 4, Sections 1400-1408 of the Labor Code, WARN protects employees, their families, and communities by requiring that employers give a 60-day notice to the affected employees and both state and local representatives prior to a plant closing or mass layoff."
Employees were notified in the last week of April 2016 of their lay-off status, and last official date of their employment is May 30th 2016. Does anyone know if Intel violated a state requirement by not giving their employees at least a 60 day notice of termination?
Intel is offering Variable separation pay I exchange for a signed separation and release agreement not to bring a suit against Intel.
I would join a class action suit. I was one of the ones layedoff. This time unlike others they say we can not come beck to Intel at a future date. Some were offered higher raises to take less stock then ended up in the lower stock level.
So, any movement on a lawsuit? Anybody?
Another rated successful employee (lower stock level) who feels slandered (labeled as poor performers) by Intel who controls probably 90% percent of the jobs in my area.
No one wants to sue them because Intel is like the mafia.
I will join the class action lawsuit if someone initiates one.
My concern would be a denial of employment by a potential future employer based on the ineligibility to be hired at any Intel facility as an Intel employee or a contracted company. If someone has no document performance issues in any review throughout their employment with Intel, has not committed any offense noted in the Workplace Behavior/Discipline & Discharge Guidelines, and is subsequently denied future employment based on the stigma of the ineligible status, would that be considered slander/libel and can a suit for defamation of character against Intel.
You're on to something.
I've heard from several that they are shocked and disappointed with who lost their jobs and managers are unhappy they weren't able to weigh in. Words like 'senior' and 'very experienced' were used frequently. The formula for who was targeted protects Intel from age discrimination on a surface level. The reality would be better discovered by knowing how many received uncharacteristic low rankings for individuals over 50 in the last three years, who took medical leave, or those who suddenly received grade promotions and higher salaries (increasing expectations and likelihood of lower scores).
In 2006, there was a group that successfully settled with Intel over age discrimination (so I heard), here's the only article I could find on it. Written before resolution but according to the article the EOCC agreed there was evidence of discrimination. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16156728
Is anyone suing Intel??? Someone needs to!
Sure at least few will join, I know Intel has more skeletons in the closet and it will be out in the open. But this one will not end up in a consent decree that Intel and few other HiTec companies entered into for colluding with other companies from hiring each other employees.
I heard one of the folks who lost their job in the recent layoffs was on medical leave for most of the last two years and their manager gave them 2 years level 4 stocks.
We bring them to court, they'd settle. I'd bet on that.
To all whining about H1B workers - if you are replaceable by some Indian RCG of course your job will sooner or later given to him, either in India or US. And why shouldn't it be? Work hard, constantly develop your skills, make yourself valuable to the company, and you will sleep peacefully. Keep living with the sense of entitlement, and day of judgement will come.
The 2015 Intel Involuntary Separation Program violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) of United States Labor Law. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) is a United States labor law which protects employees, their families, and communities by requiring most employers with 100 or more employees to provide 60 calendar-day advance notification of mass layoffs of employees, as defined in the Act. The advance notice is intended to give workers and their families transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and to obtain other employment. But the 2015 Intel Involuntary Separation Program only gave 30-day notification of mass layoffs, to the affected employees. you can check the law by clicking the following URLs,
http://www.edd.ca.gov/jobs_and_training/Layoff_Services_WARN.htm
http://www.californialabor.org/index.php/list/misc/category/about_us
In the few cases I know, the older employees have been getting excellent marks, great feedback and then suddenly hit with a grade reduction (which is completely incongruent from the reviews). Then, forced retirement. And, just shy of their full retirement packages (as pointed out above). Intel is incredibly smart in saving millions here, however, also incredibly cruel (possibly unlawful). I guess business is business. The experienced folks can be replaced with two or three fresh college grads for the same price. Sadly, it does make financial sense for Intel. Just truly an evil handling of some of Intel's most accomplished and productive employees. Cut the crap Intel...you really haven't fooled anyone. The formula used is quite transparent...
It's true that many former professional athletes continue to be involved in the sport via coaching, scouting, etc. However, they get paid significantly less in their post-playing roles than during their playing days. In general, an athlete's play is proportional to his/her contribution to the team. If the original poster is correct that older employees generally perform worse than younger employees, then in a free market economy, they should earn less than their younger counterparts. The original poster claims that he's losing $500K, meaning Intel is spending half a million dollars on employees like him. If a new college graduate earns $100K annually, and the original poster is not 5 times more productive than a college graduate, then why would any company retain workers like the original poster? In the NBA, teams with bad contracts tend to perform poorly because they don't have money left to pay good players. Think Amare Stoudemire, Allan Houston, Gilbert Arenas, even Kobe Bryant to a certain extent. On the other hand, teams with value contracts tend to outperform. Think Stephen Curry, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki.
My admitted non-expert take on the law... Intel has tons of lawyers (and like all companies they hire the best specialists) and doesn't mind paying a couple $M to $100M to win. What quality law firm will want to take that firepower on without damning evidence? A low quality law firm that will lose. Damning evidence would be something like executive emails, etc. If you have that then you MIGHT have a case. My $.02
As far as Teams such as the NFL NBA NHL what they do in many cases is take players that can not perform as well as they used to and bring them back as coaches or mentos and you're probably not aware that during training before season many former players help the teams. What I am saying, as an example, if you can not program in Pearl as fast as you used to then maybe what this person should be doing is mentoring new and younger programmers and performing project management tasks.
The real issue is that the number of older workers that are being laid off is disproportionate to the number of workers being retained. Should we consider a class action lawsuit?
Comment of the day
Or China
Which is exactly why the younger employees will be replaced by H1B workers.
You nailed it