Rusis v. International Business Machines Corp.

Background

This proposed collective action alleges that International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) systematically forced older workers out of the company, including through mass layoffs called “Resource Actions,” supposedly pretextual terminations, and constructive discharges. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects workers age 40 or older from age discrimination. IBM moved for summary judgment against 34 opt-in plaintiffs who pursued constructive-discharge or pretextual-for-cause-termination claims.

The 34 opt-in plaintiffs had not filed administrative charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). They therefore sought to use the “single filing rule,” which can allow a person who did not file an administrative charge to rely on another person’s charge when the claims involve sufficiently similar discriminatory treatment and the earlier charge gave adequate notice of the broader grievance.

Rulings on the Named Plaintiffs’ Charges

The court held that the opt-in plaintiffs could not rely on Phil McGonegal’s charge because it was untimely. The court treated the charge as filed on July 2, 2018, based on the EEOC’s determination of its receipt date. But McGonegal’s constructive-discharge claim accrued no later than May 31, 2017, when he entered IBM’s Transition to Retirement Program. The court therefore granted IBM summary judgment on McGonegal’s claim and held that the opt-in plaintiffs could not rely on his charge.

The court held that the opt-in plaintiffs could not rely on Sally Gehring’s charge because it did not describe constructive discharge or pretextual termination with enough specificity, and because Gehring had been separated through a Resource Action while the opt-in plaintiffs were not. The court likewise held that the charges of Philip Monson and Claudia Ziegler could not support these claims. Although those charges referred generally to constructive discharge and pretextual termination, the factual allegations concerning Monson and Ziegler themselves involved Resource Action layoffs rather than the treatment claimed by the opt-in plaintiffs.

The court also held that opt-in plaintiffs cannot rely on charges filed by other opt-in plaintiffs or by people who filed EEOC charges but did not later file a lawsuit. It declined to revisit its earlier rulings on those issues.

Charges from Named Plaintiffs in Other Lawsuits

The court did not finally decide whether the 34 opt-in plaintiffs could rely on charges filed by named plaintiffs in other lawsuits. The court expressed skepticism that such reliance could expand this lawsuit beyond the claims asserted by its remaining named plaintiffs, but it found that IBM had not provided sufficient legal authority addressing that specific question. IBM’s motion was therefore denied without prejudice on that issue.

The court stated that the 34 opt-in plaintiffs may still proceed in the lawsuit for now. If IBM files another summary-judgment motion on the limited issue, it must address whether an opt-in plaintiff may expand the scope of a collective action beyond the claims in the named plaintiffs’ complaint, and whether a claim that was previously asserted but later dismissed affects that analysis.

Disposition

The court granted IBM’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, without prejudice to IBM filing another motion concerning charges from named plaintiffs in other lawsuits. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket 215. Judge Valerie Caproni also required the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint proposed briefing schedule by July 18, 2022, if IBM chose to file another motion.