Rusis v. International Business Machines Corp.

Background

Edvin Rusis, Henry Gerrits, Phil McGonegal, and David Ho Eng sued their former employer, International Business Machines Corp. (IBM), in a proposed collective action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). They alleged that, beginning in the early 2010s, IBM systematically forced older workers to leave and replaced them with younger hires. The alleged methods included pretextual terminations, constructive discharges, relocation or retirement requirements, performance reviews, quotas, and other employment conditions.

The plaintiffs asked the court to authorize notice to all people who worked for IBM in the United States, were over 40, and left IBM through layoff, discharge, or voluntary departure after July 14, 2017. The proposed group included almost 13,000 people.

Legal Standard

The ADEA incorporates an enforcement provision from the Fair Labor Standards Act that allows employees to sue on behalf of themselves and other employees who are similarly situated. At the notice stage, courts in the Second Circuit require plaintiffs to make a modest factual showing that they and potential participants were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. The burden is low, but it cannot be satisfied by unsupported or conclusory assertions. At this stage, the court does not decide whether an actual legal violation occurred.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Caproni held that the plaintiffs had not shown that the proposed nationwide group was connected by a common policy or plan. The proposed group covered workers across IBM’s business segments, job classifications, locations, and employment circumstances. The affidavits from 15 former IBM employees described different alleged incidents involving different locations, divisions, seniority levels, job functions, and apparently different decision makers.

The court explained that the differences alone would not defeat the request if the plaintiffs had shown a common plan or policy. But the affidavits did not provide evidence of such a plan. Some statistics were incomplete, some assertions were speculative or conclusory, and the affidavits included a general statement that other former employees might be interested in joining the case. The affidavit from Catherine Rodgers might have supported a narrower group involving employees in the unit she oversaw, but it did not support the nationwide group proposed by the plaintiffs.

The court also found that a ProPublica article and two IBM documents did not adequately connect the proposed group. The court declined to rely on the article’s opinions and found that the documents’ references to seniority and the “Millennial mindset” did not establish a nationwide policy to discriminate against older employees. The court further concluded that the plaintiffs’ cited older decisions did not justify the requested notice under the current evidentiary standard.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for issuance of notice. The ruling concerned whether the proposed collective should receive court-assisted notice; it did not decide whether IBM violated the ADEA. The parties were ordered to appear for a conference on April 10, 2020, and to submit a joint letter and proposed case-management materials by April 2, 2020. The clerk was instructed to close docket entry 46.