Ryan v. Vertiv Corporation

Background

Dennis Ryan alleges that Vertiv Corporation terminated his employment because of his age and disability, violating New York State and City human-rights laws. His complaint states that Vertiv identified 1,682 employees for possible inclusion in a January 2023 reduction in force. According to the complaint, 16% of those employees were at least 60 years old and 84% were younger than 60, while 32% of the employees selected for termination were over 60 and 68% were under 60. Ryan alleges that this meant employees over 60 were 2.5 times more likely to be terminated.

Vertiv gave Ryan a list under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act showing the positions and ages of employees included in the reduction in force, as well as employees in the same job classification who were not included. The list did not provide the employees’ names. Ryan asked for the names of all 28 terminated employees.

The parties’ positions

Ryan offered two reasons for seeking the names. First, he argued that the terminated employees might have witnessed age or disability discrimination or might have experienced age discrimination themselves. Second, he wanted to assess whether they were similar to employees who were not included in the reduction in force.

Vertiv argued that the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act did not require disclosure of the names and that Ryan’s request would undermine that statute. Vertiv also argued that the request was improper because the case was not a pattern-and-practice case. Vertiv represented that the reduction in force was company-wide and involved employees in different departments and positions from Ryan, who was an account executive.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Ryan’s first rationale as a basis for identifying all 28 employees. It found no particular reason to think that employees included in the reduction in force were more likely than Vertiv’s other employees to have witnessed discrimination against others. But the court found some reason, based on the complaint’s allegations, to think that terminated employees over 60 may have experienced age discrimination. Their identities could lead to relevant and admissible evidence about whether the reduction in force was skewed against older employees.

The court concluded that the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act governs information an employer must provide when seeking a waiver of rights connected to an employment termination program. It does not govern or restrict information that may be discoverable in a later employment-discrimination lawsuit. The court also rejected Vertiv’s argument that Ryan’s request was irrelevant merely because the case was not a pattern-and-practice case.

The court found Ryan’s second rationale unclear and inadequately explained. Ryan did not claim that the terminated employees would themselves be comparators, meaning similarly situated employees outside his protected group who received more favorable treatment. The court also stated that Ryan could compare relevant characteristics, such as job positions and ages, without knowing the employees’ names.

The court further concluded that the cases Ryan cited did not support requiring disclosure of the names of every employee terminated in a company-wide reduction in force. Those cases involved potential comparators, people involved in the termination decision, or employees removed from the same facility.

Ruling

Judge Gary Stein ordered Vertiv to disclose the names of the other employees over 60 who were terminated as part of the January 2023 reduction in force. The court stated that mathematically there should be nine such employees. Ryan’s request for the names of the remaining terminated employees was otherwise denied. The order therefore granted the request in part and denied it in part.