Thread regarding MetLife Inc. layoffs

The problem with having a case against MetLife is to have substantial evidence involving more than one person. I had a strong case but not enough to go to court because of MetLife being a large company. I was told this by an investigation agency.
This is the advantage that the company has against the employees. With that being stated, I retained the documentation in case another situation occurs and I can provide the references to the affected employees.

Yes, I am no longer at MetLife. However, I still retained the personal documentation in my possession in case a situation arises. This includes the documentation that HR/Employee Relation/Legal supported the falsification of business records in the LOB. I am referring to information that was provided by management to be recorded on personal timesheets. Deviate from the hours and project codes and you were contacted to correct them back. Also, a manager in one instance directed members in the group to replace PTO time to project hours on the timesheets. Sounds familiar with recent events. There is NO integrity in HR/Employee Relations/Legal.

MetLife will always look for tax breaks in hiring DEI. If you deny this, then look at the public reports in percentages of DEI numbers. It would be nice if merit was employed regardless of color or gender. However, it will not change and I have sympathy for the affected employees whose merit were overlooked. Good luck.

This is one of the many reasons reasons I left. My group "needed more diversity in leadership" so they hired a female with no relevant experience to be a level above me. I spent a year doing her job, 3 months supposedly getting her up to speed, but it was useless, she didn't have the skills. Smart woman but just not the right role for her, her major qualification was her gender.

There are ways to prove it.

Someone in the know could be slighted and get vengeance by dropping a dime. Maybe someone who was pushed out with early retirement or passed over for a promotion.

Someone who was more qualified but didn't get interviewed could sue. Through legal discovery, they could obtain access to all email correspondence related to this hire or possibly past hires. I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of the current CHRO's direct reports are miffed that they didn't get the job (and might not have even gotten a shot at it).

Why do you think the recent email retention program kicked off? Email is a veritable legal landmine.

+1 billion @arq+1s0pumJW

unfortunately, this is just one of the issues.... mostly DEI nonsense, and there is no way to prove it.
If they truly embraced DEI, then every interview would be over the phone and not video or in person, so that there is no bias at all, and based solely on experience and skills.. but we all know the current way is nothing but cheap talk.
ghost jobs, recycled jobs, etc..
they get subsidies by hiring what they call DEI categories,

it's a total sham