Rusis v. International Business Machines Corp.

Background

The plaintiffs, former IBM employees, brought a proposed collective action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). They alleged that, since 2012, IBM had laid off or otherwise forced out older workers as part of a systematic effort to replace them with younger employees. Their allegations included mass layoffs called “Resource Actions,” terminations for pretextual reasons, constructive discharges, and employment conditions such as relocation requirements that older employees were unlikely to accept.

The opinion addressed one of IBM’s three motions for summary judgment. The motion concerned two groups of opt-in plaintiffs: (1) ten plaintiffs who signed agreements waiving ADEA claims in exchange for severance benefits, and (2) plaintiffs who IBM contended had signed separation agreements requiring arbitration of ADEA claims. The opinion states that Nancy Odom and Amelia Voglino had been withdrawn from the case and therefore were not included in the rulings addressed here.

Legal standard

The court explained that summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the facts favorably to the nonmoving party, but the nonmoving party must provide specific evidence showing a real issue for trial rather than relying on speculation or conclusory allegations.

ADEA waiver plaintiffs

Under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), an employee’s waiver of ADEA rights must be knowing and voluntary. For an individual termination, the employer must satisfy specified requirements, including using understandable language, referring specifically to ADEA rights, advising the employee to consult an attorney, allowing at least 21 days to consider the agreement, and providing a seven-day revocation period. For a group termination, the employee must generally receive at least 45 days to consider the agreement and additional information about the termination program.

The waiver plaintiffs did not dispute that their waivers met the OWBPA requirements if their terminations were individual. They argued instead that the terminations were part of a larger Resource Action or company-wide effort, and that the reasons given for their terminations were pretextual. The court distinguished whether the termination reasons were pretextual from whether the terminations were part of a group termination under the OWBPA.

The court found no genuine factual dispute on that issue. The ten plaintiffs were terminated individually over several years, with no apparent groupings or waves of terminations, and each received a specific reason for termination. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs had presented no evidence rebutting IBM’s evidence that the terminations were individual. The court therefore held that the waivers complied with the OWBPA and granted IBM summary judgment as to the ADEA waiver opt-ins.

Arbitration-agreement plaintiffs

IBM admitted that it terminated the arbitration-agreement opt-ins as part of Resource Actions. The separation agreements signed at termination had been lost. The issue was whether IBM could prove that the plaintiffs had signed agreements containing arbitration provisions.

The court held that the loss of the agreements was adequately explained because there was no evidence of bad faith, and the plaintiffs admitted that they had signed separation agreements. IBM identified the standardized agreements used for the relevant Resource Actions and presented evidence that those agreements contained individual-arbitration provisions and waivers of class and collective actions. The plaintiffs did not provide evidence that the agreements used for their terminations lacked arbitration provisions; in particular, none submitted a declaration denying that the signed agreement contained such a provision.

The court concluded that there was no genuine dispute of material fact about whether the arbitration-agreement opt-ins had agreed to arbitrate their ADEA claims. It therefore granted IBM’s motion as to that group as well.

Disposition

The court stated that IBM’s motion was “GRANTED in full” and directed the Clerk of Court to close the open motion at Docket 222. The opinion did not decide the plaintiffs’ underlying allegations that IBM discriminated against older workers; it ruled on the waiver and arbitration issues presented by this motion.