Forsyth v. HP Inc.

Background

Five named plaintiffs alleged that HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and California law by targeting older employees for termination and replacing them with younger employees. According to the complaint, the companies used a multiyear Workforce Restructuring Initiative and related Workforce Reduction Plans to terminate older workers while hiring younger, early-career workers. The proposed collectives covered people age 40 or older who were terminated under those plans during specified periods, with separate definitions for HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. The proposed groups excluded people who signed a waiver and general release or an arbitration agreement.

Plaintiffs asked the court to conditionally certify the two collectives, require the defendants to provide contact and other identifying information for potential members, and approve a notice process. Conditional certification at this stage does not create a permanent class or decide the merits. It permits court-approved notice to people who may choose to join the case individually.

Legal standard

The court applied the first step of the two-step process used for collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, whose procedures also apply to Age Discrimination in Employment Act collective claims. At this stage, plaintiffs have a light burden to make a preliminary showing that the potential members are “similarly situated”—meaning alike in a way that matters to resolving the claims. The court explained that it was not deciding whether the alleged discrimination occurred or whether plaintiffs would ultimately prevail.

Conditional certification

The court held that plaintiffs met the preliminary showing. Their allegations and declarations indicated that the proposed members worked for HP Inc. or Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, were at least 40 when terminated, received substantially similar termination and benefits documents, and were terminated under the same company-wide, multiyear initiative. The court found that the initiative’s implementation across both companies presented a shared factual issue material to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims.

The defendants argued that the terminations resulted from financial and business considerations unrelated to age, relying on employee declarations and financial documents. The court declined to resolve that conflict at the preliminary-certification stage, explaining that those arguments went to the merits and could be addressed later, including at the decertification stage.

Judicial notice

The court granted the defendants’ request for judicial notice of fifteen Securities and Exchange Commission filings as public financial documents, but not of disputed factual assertions contained in those filings. The court also took notice of the existence and public availability of three transcripts submitted by plaintiffs, but not of the truth of their contents.

Employee information and notice

The court granted plaintiffs’ request to require the defendants to provide counsel with potential members’ names, dates of birth, employing entity, state where they lived and worked when terminated, position or title, termination date, and last-known mailing addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers.

The court ordered that notice be sent by a third-party administrator, with the parties splitting the cost. The parties were required to meet and confer about the distribution method, including direct mail and possible additional methods such as text messages, applications, and email. The court set a 105-day notice period. It ruled that the notice did not need detailed language about depositions or other litigation obligations, but had to mention that recipients might need to cooperate, provide relevant information, and participate in the case. The notice also had to address preservation of data and documents. The court did not require notice to state that potential members had a right to choose their own counsel.

Disposition

The order’s discussion and title state that the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary certification was granted. The parties were ordered to submit a joint proposed notice by May 10, 2021. The conclusion, however, says that “Defendants’ motion for preliminary certification” was granted, which conflicts with the rest of the opinion and appears to be a drafting error. The court did not decide the ultimate merits of the age-discrimination claims.