The company will be denying some for needs of the business. If some of them are retirement eligible, say over 55 and more the 30 years. That could case great friction for employee and employer relationship. If the company let's some go with less seniority in the same department and keep people with more seniority in the same department but a separate unit do you think there could be legal recourse.
9 replies (most recent on top)
Speaking of Verizon lawyers, that’s a group that could use a large separation from the payroll. They are very good at finding outside counsel to do their work, while taking credit for all of it.
IMO I do think there is litegation risk for VZ to straight up deny someone. They would have to prove in court that they couldn’t backfill your position by June. It would probably be cheaper for them to just approve the package
Good luck suing. I had a clear cut case of retaliation against my supervisor but they drag these types of cases out for years on end. Your best best bet winning and a fast settle is s*x harassment, race descrimination, or being out on maternity leave and getting replaced by the opposite gender and no notice... yeah they're that stupid to have done that in the past.
This was never about generosity to employees. lose the high pd people whatever it takes. If they got to lose some good people on the way is ok but too many not good.
This was discussed on the HR daily calls, and they indicated that the senior employees
will get more consideration to be approved.
Needs of the business will be filled by younger workers, not older with very few exceptions. Seniority is being granted first priority for a variety of obvious reasons, even if they do have high autonomy or experience.
IMO that situation is unlikely to happen. At the level things get decided, someone over 55 with 30+ years is simply seen as an expensive drain. While the immediate supervisor and level above may greatly value his/her experience, for the purpose of this exercise , an obvious cut.
RIFs have gone after the older worker, I doubt that this would be the reverse
You say no because it has been stated Needs of the business. I say maybe for a few reasons. Sometimes if 100 people are denied and one proceeds with a law suit with a good lawyer. A quick out of court settlement may be in the best interest of the company to avoid a class action suit. Because it is written by lawyers doesn't always mean it is true, there are others lawyers that my find flaw or precedence. Companies are always afraid if it could get to trial a jury of your peers they could rule in your favor. Mist people are not fond of big corporations.
No. It has been stated throughout this is voluntary based on the needs of the business. And if you think for a hot minute that Vz lawyers have not thought of everything, you are amusing.