Laying off older employees

[daytona08]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OH

Company has been doing downsizing for the past 2 + years. No union. Downsizing was done by pick and choose and offering buyouts.

I am 57 years old, just had my 40th anniversary with company. In the past, employers were offered buyouts, then they were simply laid off...permanently. Rumor is another bout of layoffs is coming and that the RULE of 80 is going to be used.

My question is: Being 57 yrs old, can I be forced out of employment due to the RULE of 80? (Meaning when age + years of service = 80), I have a very good and clean work record. Is there any laws for laying off when there is no union involved? Is there any saving grace due to my age.

The past layoffs, approx over 1000 in the past 2 + years, were done by offering buyouts at first, then just laying off. It wasn't always done fairly.

I am very concerned about my job, and after 40 years, and probably being in the top 25 on the seniority list, wonder daily if I am going to be next. Anyone know what the laws are in my situation.

 

[ecmst12]

Age can't be used as a criteria to determine who gets laid off, that's a violation of title VII. Age (over 40) is a protected characteristic under federal law.

 

[commentator]

The rule of 80 sounds like something that might be highly illegal in my opinion.

Not that it isn't very attractive in concept, when I think of some of the older fogeys who are taking up space in some civil service jobs. (How about the rule of 130?) But wow. It sounds as though you might have a genuine EEOC situation, if you are offered a buy out and then laid off if you refuse, and a pattern of age discrimination can be established.. Others here will know far more than I do about this process, for sure.

Incidentally, I'm in ecstasy, an employer I knew well just got sued for their policies related to drug testing. Might be interesting to some of you folks. (EEOC Files Suit Against DURA For Violating Americans With Disabilities Act)

The mills of the gods, folks.

 

[daytona08]

So, CAN THE RULE OF 80 BE USED TO LAY OFF AN EMPLOYEE? AN 57 YR OLD EMPLOYEE WITH 40 YRS WITH THE COMPANY.

 

[ecmst12]

Did you read any of the previous responses? No one here works for the EEOC so we can't give you a DEFINITE answer. You can try contacting them; though I'm not sure they can tell you anything unless it actually HAPPENS to you and you are prepared to file a formal complaint.

 

[pattytx]

I'm surprised anyone even answered you after you shouted at us.

 

[ecmst12]

I thought maybe he just hit caps lock by mistake, maybe I was being too generous.

 

[daytona08]

Hmm, nobody was shouting at anyone about anything. I just wanted to make sure that someone understood my specific question. Sorry if I affended you with the caps.

And yes, I did read the post, just thought I might be able to get more of an answer. I tend to type with caps often, didn't realize it was such a big deal.

 

[ecmst12]

Considering that you already got the best answer that anyone here can provide, YELLING THE QUESTION AGAIN isn't going to get you anywhere and just makes you sound rude and obnoxious.

 

[Country Living]

You have been given some excellent advice. I'd like to add my two cents.

Before I start, you need to drop the attitude. I realize you're stressed; but, don't take it out on us. Or you'll get absolutely nothing else.

It has been my experience that those kinds of "rules" are used to identify those employees who may not be retirement eligible under the regular program; but, would be eligible under a special program. I have not seen the number used as a cutoff on who to keep and who to let go because it would weigh heavily on the older employees.

This is an example only:
Company A's minimum retirement age is 65. They are going to offer a retirement package (for whatever reason) to anyone who has the sum of combined age and years of service equal to or greater than "80". There is a specific date cutoff, say June 1st of this year for both birthday and anniversary date.

A 50 year old with 30 years of employment would have the magic "80" and be eligible for a retirement package where they would otherwise have to wait an additional 15 years.

These packages are in no way intended to push out older employees. It's a chance for the company to make changes (downsize) and offer retirement to those who otherwise might not be eligible. These offerings are usually accompanied by a statement that the company needs to downsize and if not enough people take the retirement package, decisions will have to be made on who to keep and who to let go.

Have a chat with your employee relations person to clarify the situation. You may find it beneficial not to yell at the person while you are speaking with him/her.

 

[daytona08]

Thanks for the information everyone. Unfortunately, this forum appears to be a little on the brutal side. I made 1 post and get yelled at and accused of "an attitude", no attitude here, just someone who was asking a legit question.....sorry

 

[Hot Topic]

I'm in California, and this is the first time I've ever heard of the Rule of 80. I was laid off just before my 60th birthday. My 10th anniversary with the company would have been in November.

I think you also have to provide proof that you're being laid off because of your age and not because of some rule.

 

[Country Living]

It's not about "80". It's whatever number the company decides to use.

The company I worked for had two early retirement offerings about ten years apart. The first offering number was 75. Ten years later the magic number was 70. In both offerings the employee had to be at least 50 years of age. The second offering, and it would be the last one, did a major brain drain on the company. It took years to recover and because of that they'll never offer an early retirement again.

The criteria my spouse's company used was the employee had to be at least 50 years of age by a specific date with at least 25 years of service to be offered the early retirement package.

There is usually quite a bit of analysis on how the number of potential retirements would impact production and service and this impacts the 'number' (or criteria) being used. There is a risk of key employees taking the package and leaving a knowledge gap in the company if the company is not prepared for such scenarios.