Thread regarding IBM layoffs

Honestly I think this is the best post I've saw on this board in many months. It's probably because it precisely articulated everything I had to say about the topic. In short, when it comes to loyalty we (boomers) learned a bitter lesson and that got reflected in how we raised our kids (I raised two millennials). If IBM plans to continue to behave the same way, they will have very difficult time retaining millenials as they grew up watching us struggle with RAs, deterioration of benefits, etc. Anyhow, @2pph you created a true #gold post indeed...

After reading over this Docket I thought I'd share my thoughts. Millennials are a great group of smart individuals and they're our future. As a tail-end Baby Boomer I know because we're the proud parents of three of them. We raised them to be SMART, THINK for themselves and be loyal to yourself, your family and immediate friends. We also raised them to "build your career" in a direction that provides the right work-life balance and compensation to experience all the things you want out of life ... and, based on our experience, we've conveyed "you should always be looking for your next job and your next work challenge" ... which will generally be had at another company. IBM may be targeting to hire Millennials however their biggest challenge (aside from this and other age-based lawsuits to come) will be retaining them and keeping them engaged. Again, I know because we've raised three of them. BTW all three of our Millennials are in IT and do not work at ... or plan to work at IBM.

After reading over this Docket I thought I'd share my thoughts. Millennials are a great group of smart individuals and they're our future. As a tail-end Baby Boomer I know because we're the proud parents of three of them. We raised them to be SMART, THINK for themselves and be loyal to yourself, your family and immediate friends. We also raised them to "build your career" in a direction that provides the right work-life balance and compensation to experience all the things you want out of life ... and, based on our experience, we've conveyed "you should always be looking for your next job and your next work challenge" ... which will generally be had at another company. IBM may be targeting to hire Millennials however their biggest challenge (aside from this and other age-based lawsuits to come) will be retaining them and keeping them engaged. Again, I know because we've raised three of them. BTW all three of our Millennials are in IT and do not work at ... or plan to work at IBM.

Apparently this is not the first time Andrew Brown has been named in a wrongful dismissal case.

And this answers why we fill out all those 'anonymous' surveys = "how well do you understand the company's strategic x" = seems response data from the boomer demographic was 'mined' and skewed to CONCLUDE that our 'not at all/ somewhat / etc' responses means that 'boomers don't get it' - sure we get it - we just recognize it as SOSO repackaged crap at levels where Real Work gets done - shameful

this too

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/IBM-Ads.pdf

Full Case:

1-7. Intro (Names, Backgrounds, etc.)

1. The story in Langley v. IBM begins four years ago when IBM undertook to reinvent itself in the age of the Millennial.

2. Shortly after Ginni Rometty became Chief Executive Officer of IBM in 2012, IBM embarked on a massive reinvention and rebranding campaign that had two principal and symbiotic objectives: first, to transform IBM into a “Cognitive Solutions” company deeply invested in the Cloud, Analytics, Mobile, Security and Social technology markets (“CAMS”),1 and second, to change the face of IBM by recruiting and retaining “digitally native” Millennials, which IBM defined as the generation born after 1980.

3. At a 2014 conference titled “Reinvention In The Age of The Millennial,”2 IBM expressly linked its success in CAMS to Millennials, asserting that “CAMS are driven by Millennial Traits.” By “reinventing” itself, IBM sought to “leapfrog[] the existing perception of IBM to become a leader in Millennial engagement” and thereby “drive CAMS adoption.” IBM intended to become “exponentially relevant with the Millennial demographic” by “showcas[ing] IBM’s capabilities in CAMS, driven by the digitally native millennials.”

4. Millennials represented a “trillion dollar market” and “billions” of dollars in potential sales for IBM. To capture the Millennial market, IBM had to “become one with the Millennial mindset.” “Mindshare converts to marketshare,” IBM wrote, and IBM’s “leadership in millennial engagement is the ideal value proposition for generating CAMS pipeline, which is driven by Millennial traits.” “[T]he secret to capturing the hearts, minds, and most importantly, wallets of the millennial generation is likely working with you. Your millennial employees are your most valuable and accessible asset when it comes to successfully marketing your business to the millennial generation.”3

5. Also in 2014, IBM published “Millennials: How IBM can effectively attract, engage and retain this emerging generation.” Because Millennials meant big money for IBM and because IBM “face[d] major competition with [other] companies acquiring Millennials, both within the tech sector (i.e., Microsoft, Amazon) and beyond,” IBM developed a “strategy to attract top Millennial talent.”

6. IBM aggressively executed its strategy to attract top Millennial talent on social media. On Twitter, for example, IBM created a Twitter page dedicated solely to Millennials – #IBMillennial – where IBM praised Millennials regularly and regularly features them on the IBM Twitter Jobs account.

7. IBM also instituted an “Early Professional” hiring program targeted solely at young professionals. “The idea is to bring in as much young talent into the workforce with every given opportunity.”4 IBM tells Millennials that they make great sellers because they are – well, Millennials – and therefore they should come sell for IBM.

8. Another part of IBM’s Millennial-driven reinvention was expressed in the creation of IBM’s “Millennial Corps.” IBM’s “Millennial Corps is a group of more than 5,000 IBMers [from] all across the world where Millennial-age and Millennial-minded IBMers come together to share ideas, feedback and suggestions, [and] really try[] to drive change within [IBM] as ultimately [they] are the future leaders of it.”5

9. Recently, IBM launched youIBM, an international branding campaign vividly portraying IBM as a youth-oriented tech company.6

10. On YouTube, IBM calls itself a “new IBM” by which it means a youth-oriented IBM.

11. IBM writes that “[a]n organization’s internal brand tells its story, and, in turn, reveals its true culture…. An organization's career site … should portray the company's internal brand.”8 This is how IBM “reveals its true culture” on its own Career site: 9

12. IBM’s LinkedIn page sends a similar age-based signal:10

13. And when CNBC’s Jim Cramer interviewed IBM’s CEO in June, 2017, IBM ensured she was surrounded by Millennials busily working in the background. 11

14. IBM has devoted countless millions of dollars to its effort to rebrand as a hip, Millennial-centric tech company. The activities and publications described above are illustrative, not exhaustive. IBM complemented them with Millennial-themed seminars, holiday parties, blogs,12 leadership programs, social media initiatives, white papers,13 online videos, newscasts14 and other advertising and public relations efforts intended to shed IBM’s image “as a company composed mainly of aging white guys,” and to substitute in its place a new, cooler, much younger image of IBM comprised of “rock star” Millennials.15

15. Simple. IBM believes Millennials are the most educated, technologically adept and digitally proficient generation of workers alive, making them superior to older employees in the new CAMS markets. Millennials are highly innovative and instinctively collaborative, whereas Boomers are not. IBM also believes that Millennials “speak Millennial,” giving them a fluency in communicating with other Millennials and a special rapport with Millennials who work for companies that purchase IBM’s products and services. Millennials are awesome! Boomers, not so much

16. In 2015, IBM published “Myths, exaggerations and uncomfortable truths – The real story behind Millennials in the workplace,”16 a recruiting tool that flattered Millennials and purported to refute stereotypes about Millennials.

17. Myths, exaggerations and uncomfortable truths expressly compared and contrasted Millennial employees with Generation X and with Baby Boomers. Whereas IBM professed to find many positive traits associated with the Millennial generation, IBM tended to be critical of older workers.

18. For example, older workers were technologically less sophisticated because they were not “digital natives.” Baby Boomers allegedly “place[d] less stock in the advantages [that] data offer[ed] than their younger colleagues” and were comparatively “dubious” of technology. Boomers were also far less “savvy” than Millennials with respect to social media.

19. “Successor generations X and Y are generally much more innovative and receptive to technology than baby boomers,” IBM wrote in another publication.17 “[A]ge is catching up with Baby Boomers,” whom IBM referred to as “gray hairs” and “old heads.”18 Boomers were leaving work in increasing numbers “due to retirement or disability.” Those still working often needed accommodations for “‘wear and tear’ disabilities like hearing and vision impairment [sic] that older people routinely develop.”19

20. Boomer employees were also less likely to admit mistakes at work or collaborate in decision-making, traits that caused friction in the workplace. “Baby Boomers accustomed to making decisions on their own may find it difficult to shift to a more collaborative culture, which can cause tension between older and younger employees.” In a 2015 paper entitled “To buy or not to buy? How Millennials are reshaping B2B marketing,”20 IBM again found that Boomer employees were not motivated to consult their colleagues before making decisions. This was a negative trait because “[f]or leading organizations, a corporate culture of collaboration and consensus building is needed.” To create that culture, IBM recommended that companies “[p]ut Millennials on [their] sales and marketing teams.”

21. In August, 2016, IBM Marketing Manager Erika Riehle stereotyped Boomer employees as contributing to five workplace “dysfunctions.”21 Boomers were allegedly less trusting of their co-workers, less collaborative, less committed, less accountable and less attentive to results. Compared to younger employees, IBM found that Boomers were the least likely to understand IBM’s business strategy, least likely to understand their manager’s expectations of them, least likely to understand what customers wanted, and the least likely to understand IBM’s brand.

22. IBM’s findings about Boomers boded ill for IBM’s Boomer employees because IBM’s “foundational competencies” consisted of traits such as teamwork and collaboration that Boomers lacked.

1. IBM de-ages its workforce: IBM conspicuously projects a diverse and inclusive employment brand with respect to race, national origin, gender, disability and s-xual orientation. As conspicuously, however, IBM does not brand itself as being interested in older workers. With respect to age, IBM’s branding message is clear. Young people are welcome, perfectly fit IBM’s new culture and are encouraged to apply for employment. At the same time, IBM signals to decisionmakers that Baby Boomers are not welcome at IBM and do not fit IBM’s new culture. IBM broadcast these signals loudly, repeatedly and system-wide. And in the years between 2013 and 2017, IBM’s Boomer employees – being labeled by IBM’s own research as uncollaborative, skeptical of leadership, technologically unsophisticated, less innovative and generally out of touch with IBM’s brand, customers and objectives – were shown the door in droves.

2. In 2015 alone, IBM laid-off several tens of thousands of employees, the vast majority of whom were over the age of 40, and the greatest concentration of which were Baby Boomers.

3. When IBM conducts a “Resource Action” (IBM speak for a reduction in force), it shields its youngest employees from lay-off. IBM’s Early Professionals are exempt from reduction for nine months from their hire date. Only IBM’s youngest workers receive this special treatment.

4. Not only does IBM shield its youngest workers from lay-off, at the same time as IBM has laid off thousands of Baby Boomers, it has aggressively recruited and hired many thousands of Millennials and members of Generations X and Z.

5. IBM’s aggressive hiring of younger workers is part of its deliberate strategy to “Transform[] to Next Generation Digital Talent.” For example, in IBM’s Software Group (“SWG”), which is split between Manufacturing and Development (“M&D”) and Sales and Distribution (“S&D”), IBM sought to increase the percentage of Early Professionals hired into M&D from 77% in 2012 to 90% in 2015, and the overall percentage of Early Professionals hired into its SWG from 56% to 65% over the same period.

6. IBM did this by executing over a thousand early allocation university chits, “build[ing] and leverag[ing] additional early professional talent pools,” substantially increasing its conversion rate of interns to full hires, and by “sell[ing] early professionals on IBM.”

7. IBM also moved to “[s]hift [its] headcount mix towards [a] greater % of Early Professional hires” and to “re-profile [its] current talent” by implementing a “[c]ontinuous talent refresh” that “focus[es] on programs to create room for new talent to build skills for key growth areas in Cloud and Cognitive.”

8. IBM’s express purpose is to achieve “55% Early Professional Hires in 2020.” It aggressively seeks an “influx of EP’s [sic] to correct [its] seniority mix,” has developed specific strategies for recruiting and hiring Early Professionals, and has created positions for younger workers by “[u]tilizing various reduction initiatives such as resource action[s],” whereby older workers are laid-off.

9. In Mr. Langley’s Hybrid Cloud business unit, IBM began to “drive a more aggressive performance management approach to enable [it] to hire and replace, and fund an influx of EP's to correct [its] seniority mix (46% benchmark vs 21% actual).” IBM sought to eventually increase the percentage of Early Professionals in its Hybrid Cloud business unit to 59%.

10. The deliberately age-based impact of IBM’s lay-offs was so stark and so statistically significant that in 2014, IBM stopped requesting ADEA releases from its terminatedolder workers.22 IBM did this to circumvent the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act (“OWBPA”).23 Although IBM stopped requesting releases of ADEA claims, it nonetheless required any older worker who accepted IBM’s one month severance offer to privately arbitrate their ADEA claims, subject to limited discovery and a full waiver of the right to pursue or participate in a collective action under the ADEA.

11. IBM’s excision of so many thousands of older workers – people who had provided 20, 25 and sometimes 30 or more years of service to IBM – hardly went unnoticed. After thousands of former IBMers set up online support groups such as “Watching IBM” and started talking about their lay-off experiences, some of America’s most accomplished investigative journalists began asking questions.

12. Following a lengthy investigation by ProPublica and Mother Jones, journalists Peter Gosselin and Ariana Tobin published an extensive report in March, 2018 meticulously detailing how IBM targeted its older employees with layoffs and forced retirements to make room for substantially younger recruits.24 On May 17, 2018, Mr. Gosselin wrote a companion article, which reports on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s large-scale investigation of IBM’s discriminatory practices.25

13. IBM’s primary method for taking out its older workers is surprisingly simple. A directive comes down to first and second line managers to reduce headcount. Using IBM’s “staff reduction methodology,” first and second line managers generate secret ratings of employees eligible for reduction using predominantly subjective evaluation criteria. The employees are then ranked against one another and the lowest ranked employees are then selected for reduction.

14. Age discrimination taints the resource action from the outset because IBM’s objective is to make room for younger employees. But for IBM’s move to reinvent itself in the age of the Millennial and its campaign to attract, engage and retain Millennial talent, downsized older workers would not have been let go.

15. At least one statistical analysis performed on an IBM data set found that age played a statistically significant role in managers’ stack rankings after accounting for the effects of performance relative to goal, manager-specific idiosyncratic tendencies and job band. In other words, as age increased, individuals’ stack rankings fell. The analysis further concluded that age was the only conventionally significant predictor of termination decisions. The IBM data supported the conclusion that employees’ age had a significant effect on managerial rankings, and that these rankings, in turn, were the primary input into selection decisions. This mediational pattern showed that age had a significant indirect effect on termination decisions, controlling for other available information. In other words, controlling for non-age factors, as an IBMer aged, she or he became worse off. Holding non-age factors constant, managers lowered stack rankings and were increasingly likely to select employees for reduction as they grew older.

16. IBM managers sometimes pre-select employees for reduction before performing the staff reduction methodology. That is to say, IBM managers sometimes reverse engineer their staff reduction worksheets by first selecting the employees they wish to terminate, and then creating ratings and rankings that purport to justify their selection decisions.

1. Beyond this, line managers often fail to rate people on their teams and instead rate people who report to other line managers, both violations of IBM’s written staff reduction guidelines. Mr. Langley’s Performance at IBM

2. Mr. Langley, age 60, joined IBM in 1993 and worked continuously for IBM for the next 24 years.

3. In 2016 and into 2017, Mr. Langley worked as Worldwide Program Director/Sales Lead Bluemix SaaS in IBM’s Hybrid Cloud business unit. He reported to Kim Overbay, age 43, Director of Global Sales, IBM Application Platform and Runtimes, who in turn reported to Andrew Brown, age 46, Vice President of Worldwide Sales, IBM Hybrid Cloud Software.

4. Mr. Langley was a successful employee and his performance met or exceeded IBM’s expectations.

5. In addition to a substantial salary, Mr. Langley earned substantial bonus pay and fringe benefits with IBM, including a health benefits portfolio consisting of medical insurance, dental insurance, vision insurance, disability insurance, a Health Saving Account and a Flexible Spending Account. Mr. Langley also had a 401K+ Plan, a vacation plan providing for 20 days of paid vacation, a paid holiday plan, an Employee Stock Purchase Plan and life insurance.

6. In January 2017, IBM awarded Mr. Langley a $20,000 performance bonus for Q4 2016 that his supervisor Kim Overbay said was the largest bonus on her team.

7. Mr. Langley’s bonus for 2016 was 55% above his 2015 bonus.

8. Mr. Langley’s Termination from IBM - In December, 2016, Mr. Brown sent Mr. Langley a private email telling him that he needed to look for a new job.

9. On or about March 30, 2017, Kim Overbay told Mr. Langley that he was being permanently laid off effective June 28, 2017 as part of a resource action.

10. Mr. Langley applied for four other positions with IBM in an effort to continue his employment. He was not hired for any of them.

11. Although IBM had involuntarily terminated Mr. Langley, IBM subsequently marked Mr. Langley as having “resigned” in its HRIS system. Then, on or about July 6, 2017, Mr. Langley received a letter from IBM congratulating him on his “retirement.”

12. IBM Lies to the EEOC - IBM told the EEOC that Overbay, using a staff reduction methodology in January, 2017, selected Langley for reduction because he scored lowest on Overbay’s secret stack ranking when she ranked him against three other members of his team. It also claimed that Langley was the youngest of the four people Overbay evaluated.

13. In fact, however, Overbay’s January, 2017 staff reduction methodology was not how IBM selected Mr. Langley for reduction. Brown had told Langley in December, 2016 that

Langley needed to look for other employment. IBM had selected Langley for reduction before Overbay’s alleged evaluation and selection decision in January.

1. IBM also lied about the number of people on Overbay’s team; there were at least eight people who reported to Overbay, not four.

2. IBM similarly lied about Langley’s job performance, claiming that Langley was not collaborative, communicative, responsive to the sales team and so on.

3. Overbay’s criticisms are contradicted by dozens of emails praising Langley for the very skills that Overbay claimed Langley lacked.

4. Overbay’s criticisms are contradicted by Langley’s consistent receipt of 1, 2+ or 2 performance ratings on his Personal Business Commitment (“PBC”) annual performance reviews, which ratings were all relative to other members of his team, and which ratings reflected that Langley performed his job at least as well and often above the level of other members of his team.

5. Overbay’s criticisms are also contradicted by the Langley’s receipt of the largest performance bonus of any member of his team in January, 2017.

6. Contrary to the pretextual reasons articulated in IBM’s EEOC Position Statement, the actual reason for selecting Mr. Langley for termination was his age.

7. IBM treated substantially younger persons more favorably by (a) signaling through its internal and external branding and marketing that IBM wished to hire and/or retain younger persons, (b) applying subjective RIF criteria designed to screen out older workers, disregarding the official PBC ratings and evaluations of older workers who were strong performers and assigning them lower ratings for the purpose of selecting them for reduction, (c) not selecting younger persons for reduction, (d) providing younger workers training opportunities that were not provided to older workers, and by (e) transferring younger employees selected for reduction to other positions in IBM.

8. Had Mr. Langley been younger, and especially if he had been a Millennial, IBM would not have fired him.

9. Mr. Langley’s age was a motivating factor in his selection for termination.

10. Mr. Langley incorporates by reference the allegations above as though set forth in full.

11. IBM terminated Mr. Langley because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §623(a)(1).

12. IBM’s violation of the ADEA was willful.

13. As the direct result of IBM’s age discrimination, Mr. Langley has sustained and will continue to sustain wage and benefits losses, and has incurred and will continue to incur out of pocket losses, including attorney fees and legal costs.

14. As the direct result of Defendant’s pretextual criticisms of Mr. Langley’s performance, Mr. Langley has lost earnings capacity. WHEREFORE, Mr. Langley demands judgment as follows: Continue on https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Langley_v_International_Business_Machines_Corporation_Docket_No_1?1527798903