My company is going through substantial layoffs, and we have an older workforce. Most older employees earn higher salaries, so it makes sense that they’d be let go to reduce costs. However, younger workers are unofficially protected as they are seen as emerging talent. Could this be age discrimination? Most jobs are going to India, and US employees affected often perform above average. Located in Texas.
When I was laid off by a large tech company in 2022, I got a list of titles and ages (not names) to show there wasn’t age discrimination. Funky.
Micah said:
When I was laid off by a large tech company in 2022, I got a list of titles and ages (not names) to show there wasn’t age discrimination. Funky.
That’s required by law to release potential age claims.
Whether you like it or not, if cost is why people are being let go, it’s not discrimination based on age.
Harlan said:
Whether you like it or not, if cost is why people are being let go, it’s not discrimination based on age.
If permitted, I’ll add another question. Nation of origin is a discrimination category. Internal documents state hiring roles in the US should be avoided where possible. This is cost reduction, but how is it not discrimination based on national origin? Granted the US is the nation of origin being discriminated against.
@Hadden
The location where an applicant resides is a valid reason to discriminate. If a US employer avoids hiring US-born employees for the same US city job because of their birth country, that’s a violation. But cost-cutting by avoiding higher salaries isn’t.
@Sawyer
Got it. Thanks for clarifying!
Age discrimination wouldn’t fall into play here, as jobs are being outsourced. If a 50-year-old Texas resident was replaced by a 24-year-old Texas resident, there’d be a potential claim. Replacing with a different demographic for lower cost isn’t age discrimination.
If they can mention something reasonable other than age for termination, it’s not discrimination. Costs less and next-gen talent are valid reasons.
Ren said:
If they can mention something reasonable other than age for termination, it’s not discrimination. Costs less and next-gen talent are valid reasons.
Most eliminated jobs are going to India. Performance in the US is above average, so it feels like cost-cutting.
@Hadden
That strengthens the claim it’s cost-related, not age.
u/itpro_2020, (Age Discrimination?), all posts are locked pending moderator review.
Frankie said:
u/itpro_2020, (Age Discrimination?), all posts are locked pending moderator review.
Noted, thanks for the heads-up.