IBM Canada can't duck channel exec's systematic age discrimination claim Three years ago, Bruce Maule, worldwide president of channel marketing at IBM, was informed by bosses that his position was being eliminated. But allegedly the position wasn't eliminated. "When IBM fired me, their stated reason was that they were reducing headcount, but they actually replaced me with a younger employee," Maule …
Hmm. I'm not so sure. How many times do we here 'Opps, sorry. That was a mistake. Lessons will be learnt...' And yet we keep hearing that same phrase. (There is probably a corporate playbook somewhere that has these words written down, because I read them so often in the reply to some disaster or other.)
As for IBM I do wonder where in the organisation this obviously unwritten policy is based. They keep changing those at the top but -- did Ginny whisper this to Arvind before she left? Or is there a cabal of senior people who demand this happens? And for what benefit? For the company to look young and virile, while its core customers are the financial service sector that doesn't give a shit about this -- just make sure you give us what we want?
I don't get it.
Yet another example of a corporation getting the 'justice' it wants by 'simply' out-spending the plaintiff ...
You prolong the process by spending more and more money to argue/protest/appeal every single point, particularly if you can set the law of the US of A against the Law of Canada & vice versa.
Eventually, you will find a Justice that 'sides' with you out of fatigue and the need to resolve the case in some manner to clear the legal logjam!!!
Usually, by this time the original plaintiff is bankrupt or dead !!!
IBM wins by attrition and gets to continue to deny the age discrimination policy exists !!!
:)
This, notoriously now, was part of the plan with the Post Office's handling of the Horizon scandal. To out-lawyer the postmaster/mistresses until they gave up or couldn't get funding.
It will continue as a strategy until the legal profession are put under obligation to prevent misuse of legal process- which will probably occur slightly after the third incidence of flying pigs..
@Terry 6 "It will continue as a strategy until the legal profession are put under obligation to prevent misuse of legal process"
Obligation is not going to prevent misuse, we can't trust the legal profession to police its self. Obligation will just result in more litigation, as they would then litigate for misuse of legal process. Without reform of the legal process, the legal profession will continue their misuse of legal process through the use appeals.
Before the case has even got to trial there's an appeal delaying the trail by a further year. IBM Canada have appealed the judge decision to rule against IBM Canada's motion. But why should they be allowed to appeal? After all they had plenty of time, a year to prepare their arguments for the hearing and the judge ruled against them. Arguments all of which the appeal judge has already heard as it's his ruling being appealed.
You should not be able to appeal the decision of a judge during pre trial, after all it just delays the start of the inevitable appeal trial. How many bloody appeal processes do we need? Most of the time none. You should not be be able to appeal with out genuine grounds to. And no just because you lost does not count as genuine grounds to appeal.
100% agree.
"his pleadings should be struck because they're irrelevant or scandalous."
That's an *amazingly* vague legal idea that only benefits those with enough money to stall and intentionally delay a lawsuit.
"Scandalous" How about some defendant actions ARE "scandalous" and simply throwing them into the light of justice does NOT make it damaging to said defendant - their own actions did that, long ago. But, thanks to pro-lobbist politicians you get a law that essential says "Do you have money? Do you hate the fact that your actions aw seen as horrible? Now you can claim defamation for the fact that they're talking about it and get the lawsuit against you thrown out!".
Here's a better idea for Canadian businesses: don't act like scumbags in the first place.
also, a legal costs award can be judged in favour of the plaintif. in Canada that's designed to discourage lawyers from "running out the clock" as you suggest.
also the same judge is handling all of the motions. these are not separate lawsuits and can't be used for Judge shopping.
I was there from 1990 to 1992, and I saw the changing of the guard in real time.
The old guard had been taught that *they* controlled the accounts, not the customers. The customers were expected to shut up and buy what they were told to buy. That had worked for 50 years, why wouldn't it work now? The new generation thought that the old guard were out of touch technically, and they were. They have been more current with technology, but they still viewed customers as livestock who were expected to follow whatever IBM dictates.
The problem was that the world was changing, and the money wasn't all in multimillion dollar mainframes and the associated high-margin support contracts. Cheap PCs were the new thing (a $3,000 Compaq 386 could do about 75% of what a System/36 could do, at about a tenth of the cost. IBM viewed PC users as defective corporations, and treated them as such.
IBMers who tried to buck the trend were let go. IBMers who challenged orthodoxy were let go. The result was a corporate culture that not only stifled innovation, it punished it. Engineers were treated as interchangeable commodities. If the loaded cost of that commodity is $175 in Toronto and $1.38 in Mumbai (seriously, it was under $2 in 1997), they were going to do everything they could to replace Toronto resources with ones in Mumbai. Some Toronto people were even apparently offered positions in India when they were told their local positions were being phased out.
LaMoreaux's comment that it's not IBM policy is technically correct. It's what is legally termed "Constructive Dismissal". There is no directive from senior management to fire older employees, but what there is are targets that are given to middle management that cannot be met any other way except through the dismissal of the older employees. They're not telling the manager to fire the most senior engineer; they're cutting his budget so that he either has to fire the senior engineer or two (or sometimes three, or even four) younger members of the team. Obviously, the middle manager will cut as few people as possible, and that just "happens" to be the oldest, and most expensive, member of the team.
The situation you're describing was 35 years ago so the 'new generation' you're talking about are the ones getting resource actioned today. I found the bigger change happened post 2003 with the move away from product towards services and then top license harvesting.
Just to recap the claims made when Shannon Liss-Riordan filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan:
This week, as reported by Bloomberg, “IBM executives discussed in emails how to force out older workers and derided them as “dinobabies” who should be made an “extinct species,” according to a court filing in an age discrimination case against the company. The filings revealed communications showing “highly incriminating animus” against older employees by officials who at the time were in the company’s “highest ranks. The reporting asserts that in an email chain there was a plan to “accelerate change by inviting the ‘dinobabies’ (new species) to leave” and turn them into an “extinct species.” Bloomberg added, “Company officials also complained about IBM’s ‘dated maternal workforce’ that ‘must change,’ and discussed frustration that IBM had a much lower share of Millennials in its workforce than a competitor, but said its share would increase following layoffs, according to the filing.””
Those claims (which I can't independently verify) are not compatible with your claim that - LaMoreaux's comment that it's not IBM policy is technically correct. It's what is legally termed "Constructive Dismissal".
Quote from OA
"Maule is seeking a ruling that requires IBM to provide an appropriate layoff notice period for workers, which is between 24 and 36 months under Canadian law. He is also seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and punitive damages amounting to CA$150,000 ($108,000, £85,000) for being subject to systematic age discrimination."
So this chap wants a couple of years salary in lieu of notice and £85k. Seems relatively modest. Will IBM Canada be tempted to settle on a no fault basis?
Same old IBM, drag it out for as it as long as possible until the find some dirt on claimant, they die or court throws it out. If it looks like going to court and they will lose, settle, as they can't afford to have an age discrimination case proven, as that will open flood gates of all other employees sacked for being old and then get sued by shareholders when share price takes a hit.
What is old?
So my parents generation were much more employed in jobs with a physical component to it, they retired at 60-65 and were dead by 67.
Nowadays I expect unless my brain gives out I can be working well into my 70s, also I'm much more likely to live into my 90s, not my 60s.
Yet we still haven't really changed what we define as 'old'. If I live to 90 I'll've spent 30+ years being 'old' in IBMs eyes.
Most of the workforce is ageing and not having kids. Seems sill really.
"What is old?"
In my UK experience about 50-55 is when you can expect it to become notably harder to land your next role. Things may look different if you're contracting and have the relevant skills, because the hirer isn't seeing you as an employee, but as a salaried employee in larger businesses, around 55 and over and you're yesterdays' news.
This is routinely sanctioned by HR directors who whine that their workforce is "pale, male and stale", because let's face it these are all valid grounds for discrimination.
It's not age based, it's expense and exploitation. It's just there's a strong correlation between older workers being paid more, being more prepared to stand up for their rights, and not be exploited by work.
Whilst it's true that many jobs are less physical now, and lifespans are longer, your later years are not necessarily of the highest quality. Beyond 80 the likelihood of health conditions and other basic ageing may affect how you can spend those years. After 90 everything to my mind is basically a bonus. That leaves, with a standard UK state pension, roughly a decade that you may be able to enjoy without work and that assumes decent health and a good life situation, neither of which are at all certain.
Retire early if you can.
Traditionally (having worked for them) I observed that the usual approach was to "promote" older employees into mind-boggling dumb positions that did nothing and bored you to death, while requiring you to commute daily or relocate to Outer Mongolia, with the expectation you would quit. Covid perhaps shifted things a bit that you could do this from home now. So eliminating the position makes more sense to them, as it was a non-position in the first place, having to backfill it means you unexpectedly made it useful somehow (tut tut). They must have some cheap lawyers if it makes sense to defend these rather than just pay out a relatively low amount - the potential for class action I guess....
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
