Wrongful termination filed with EEOC

[hyass99]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York, I have a dilemma myself and 15 other employees were terminated from restaurant inside a retail store due to restructuring. Majority of people are over 40 yo. Within group we have front of the house and back of house employees. Front of house employees all females were fired plus 1 male counter server. We have received 2 types of legal advice: 1 firm is willing to take only female waitresses and 2nd firm is saying all 16 of us should stick together. Are we strong by number or as a protected class of gender doing the same position?

 

[cbg]

How many female employees were maintained? How many employees over 40?

Is the male counter server over 40?

 

[Zigner]

If this was truly a restructuring,, what makes you (plural) think you were fired based on your age or gender?

 

[justalayman]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York, I have a dilemma myself and 15 other employees were terminated from restaurant inside a retail store due to restructuring. Majority of people are over 40 yo. Within group we have front of the house and back of house employees. Front of house employees all females were fired plus 1 male counter server. We have received 2 types of legal advice: 1 firm is willing to take only female waitresses and 2nd firm is saying all 16 of us should stick together. Are we strong by number or as a protected class of gender doing the same position?

what are you calling restructuring?

Majority of people are over 40 yo.

so that shows it was not an age based action

Front of house employees all females were fired plus 1 male counter server.

were any front of house employees retained? if so, were they male only? Unless they were only male, it shoots your claim of gender discrimination.

Are we strong by number or as a protected class of gender doing the same position?

number is irrelevant but as to gender discrimination; you have not described any discrimination yet.

 

[cbg]

I think s/he is saying that the majority of people laid off were over 40, which means it could be an age based action. That's why I asked the questions I did.

 

[commentator]

Okay, you've talked to two attorneys, or two law firms, right? And they're both willing to take your case on a contingency basis? In other words, no money up front. One says "you should all stick together" as in a complaint based on age discrimination, (which would exclude only those under 40) but I hope this doesn't mean they'll take money from all of you, try to press this forward on age of all the group members, does it? The other one says they'll only pursue the case of the female employees, right? On a no pay till settled basis?

Personally, I don't see much here at all either way. I'd file something with the EEOC, and then go on with my life unless they give you a "right to sue" letter, either as a group of females or as a group of older workers. And I wouldn't hold my breath either way. If there was any strong possibility for a prevailing lawsuit, these law firms would be chomping at the bit to take your case on contingency, eager to follow it through.

I hope each of you has filed for unemployment insurance individually, which you should qualify for based on your separation due to restructuring, and I hope everyone is moving forward with a job search for a new job. You should all be working under the realization that if you have some sort of EEOC case that the EEOC investigates and recognizes, it will take literally years to work it out, so you are not going to get your old jobs back or a big monetary settlement anytime in the near future. (Even if there was a strong case here, which as I said, I am not seeing at all.)

I've watched thousands and thousands of people lose jobs due to restructuring or changes in the business. I've seen practically none of them that had any kind of valid age or sex discrimination suit when this happened. People hate change. They always feel they've been mistreated, "wrongfully discharged" or something like that when they lose a job through no fault of their own, particularly in a mass termination of this sort. But it is very very rare for this sort of thing to be determined to be based on either sex or age discrminiation by the EEOC.

 

[justalayman]

I think s/he is saying that the majority of people laid off were over 40, which means it could be an age based action. That's why I asked the questions I did.

Given that a majority is defined as anything over 50%, I don't see such a loosely defined statement as supporting a claim of anything. If the majority of the employees were over 40, a random drawing of straws to determine who is terminated would result in a majority of the terminations were of people over 40 (in consideration of calculable odds) so making a statement that the majority of those let go were over 40 is meaningless without much more data being known.

 

[cbg]

I said could be. Not, Is. That's why I asked the questions, so we could get additional information.

Look, I'm the one who used to conduct these investigations for a living. Granted, I only do benefits now but I'm not exactly a novice here.

 

[hyass99]

Eeoc

Yes all of the waitresses from both restaurants were fired while all the male waiters were retained except counter server.

 

[hyass99]

Eeoc

From my research gender is a protected class so the restructuring should be illegal if they are only going for male waiters!

 

[cbg]

You didn't answer all my questions.