There is plenty of media coverage of the Intel ageism accusations, but only one article so far that I have read mentioned a real possibility of class-action lawsuit against the company.
What are the chances this is true, considering how hard it is to prove ageism in any company? And considering that everybody had to sign off on not suing Intel forever and ever before receiving severance?
Intel will drag it out for a half dozen years and settle for 10 cents on the dollar.
Remember the non-poaching class action? That was worth about two weeks of pay when the checks were sent
I am IN for a class-action suit. I was laid-off in the July 2015 action that got leaked to the Oregonian. 1 month later my mgr was on LinkedIN advertising for my job. Incredible! I'll be monitoring this site for news of a formalized class-action suit.
All HR actions are a balance of calculated legal risk vs. benefit to the company. RT and BK assessed that the risk was worth it, to fire old people and replace with younger of similar skills (albeit less experience). The legal assessment was its worth it, and the EEOC is unlikely to go after Intel. Time will tell if the assessment was correct, but it was a callous decision and Intel better think carefully about continued actions that disproportionately hit protected classes while simultaneously hiring 21 year olds.
HR does careful reviews of all these types of actions looking at the data by gender, race, grade, geo, you name it. There is no way that RT and BK did not intentionally do this. As they were firing 49 year olds, they were hiring kids from college. At the same time during ACT, BK directed that all interns, regardless of assessed performance, short of coming in drunk or not coming in, were to be hired with rare exceptions. This was so architected. And is quite unethical. Thousands of folks that gave their weekends, sacrificed family time, worked their a**ses off got walked out while new employee orientation was accumulating in the same lobby. For shame.
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/05/29/intel-age-discrimination-class-action-lawsuit-intc.html
In one round of layoffs in May 2016, the median age of the 2,300 employees who lost their jobs was 49...
Anyone knows the latest on this.
Can those ex-employees that contact EEOC this week please continue to update this forum with your progress? Thank you!
Is it too late file class action for being layoff in Apr 2016? it seems there is a time limit of 30 -45 days after layoff! Anyway I'm going to call EEOC Office on Mon to get information and help, let's see how it goes:-)
Do I need to get attorney for help? Or just with filing class action in the link, I can file my case? I got laid off in 2016 with good performance,SL4 rate!
Read this article carefully. Contact the legal resource referenced. Class action maybe in the works, but if you were layoff in 2016 you can get legal help.
http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2018/05/federal_commission_investigati.html
Would love to see a class action lawsuit just because the sins of Intel will then remain in the news and will not go away anytime soon. The latest negative publicity is a good start to bring all that was hidden to the light of day.
Intel focal system with the ACT was age bias by definition.
You rank employees, then look at grade, pay and time in grade to determine rating and stock.
Older and higher pay always stick out as first to get SL4 or negative ratings
Intel will get its a$$ handed to them in court
From EEOC on age discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_severance-agreements.html
May I still file a charge with the EEOC if I believe that I have been discriminated against based on my age, race, s-x, or disability, even if I signed a waiver releasing my employer from all claims? Yes.
If I file a charge with the EEOC after signing a waiver, will I have to return my severance pay? No.
Will I have to return my severance pay if I file a discrimination suit in court after signing a waiver
No.
Certainly performance was NOT the issue with these laid-off former employees as they were suddenly blindsided. The set up was the new criteria of SL4 stock units given out at focals shortly before to cover mgmt butts. Then BK announces a week later that the layoff criteria includes getting one SL4 rating. Cheap and sleazy. Total blindside. Pawns in a layoff game. Their only fault was their age.
The new h1b's will do a much better job, work full-time instead of few hours every day. Get fresh college grads and remove old timers who do not work, else these jobs will go to israel, India or Malaysia.
My team laid off 3 old Americans, hired 4 H1B Indians. No change on the work we do.
I was released in 2016. I don't know how prevalent this was, but in my group, if you were sent the email notifying you of 'eligibility' AND did not accept, you were called into a meeting with the skip-skip manager who highly suggested that you take the package. After hearing about this, I figured that I really didn't have a choice, so even though I wanted to work for another 3 years before retiring, I felt that I had no choice (even though I received 2 outstandings and 1 EE in the last 4 years. So even with Intel requiring us to agree that we wouldn't sue in order to get package, I felt that I was being subtley pressured to take it. On one hand Intel was saying that it was completely optional, they were pressuring those who didn't sign up. I don't know how the law would treat this (provable?), but it sure felt that they were trying to get rid of many of their high income employees. I heard (true?), that Intel is now back to 2016 employee count.
Fire more who do not work and pay the fine.
Hopefully they at least get bad press out of this and their true nature is exposed.
People who took either package (ERP & VSP) signed a letter that they couldn't not sue Intel by accepting either one.
I am getting interviews next week