Age discrimination class-action against HP and HPE gets green light to proceed
- Reference: 1618596911
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/04/16/age_discrimination_classaction_against_hp/
- Source link:
In their original complaint, the plaintiffs accused HPE and spin-off HP of violating federal and California age discrimination laws during a period of corporate restructuring by pushing out older workers while aggressively hiring younger ones.
[2]
According to the filing, they claimed this demographic shake-up started in 2012, and continued in the years following the [3]late 2015 separation of HP . More importantly, they claim it wasn't an accident, but rather driven by a conscious decision by then-CEO Meg Whitman, who was cited as expressing a desire to hire "a whole host of young people" and make the company "younger" during a securities analysts meeting in 2013.
The complainants also pointed to what they see as explicit declarations from HP that it was "amping up" early-career and college hiring, as well as statements from Whitman describing an informal rule that forced managers to "really think" about hiring early-career employees. Older employees, meanwhile, were maligned in internal documents as "traditionalist" and "rule breakers."
[4]
Whitman also expressed a desire to change the age makeup of HP from a "diamond" (with a heavy concentration of middle-aged workers) to a "quite flat diamond" with "lots of young people coming in right out of college."
In his ruling this week, district judge Edward Davila granted their request for a collective action, saying they "met their burden [of proof]" in showing those fired from HP and HPE after having turned 40 had enough in common for the case to proceed.
Davila set a 105-day notice during which those with similar grievances can join the suit.
Both HP and HPE have strenuously denied behaving in a discriminatory manner, with HP previously pointing to the company's tenuous financial footing at the start of the decade, compounded by declines in its printing and device business units, as well as [5]the disastrous acquisition of UK software firm Autonomy .
This isn't the first age discrimination complaint [6]surrounding HP's mid-2010s cost-cutting measures , and it follows a similar win against IBM last month.
Big Blue faces similar allegations it [7]purged as many as 13,000 older employees in order to bring in a younger workforce. The complainants also accused IBM of using subterfuge and underhand tactics to remove staffers over the age of 40, and to prevent them finding permanent new roles within the company.
[8]
These claims, which date back to 2018, have now entered the discovery process, with the schedule for fact-finding expected to be drawn up this month. ®
Get our [9]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/04/15/order_certifying_forsyth_v_hp_inc.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YHoI9sGolfAXCY8SyybI7gAAAIk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2015/08/24/hp_split/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YHoI9sGolfAXCY8SyybI7gAAAIk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/16/autonomy_trial_93_days_finished/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/22/hp_hpe_accused_of_coordinated/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/31/longrunning_age_discrimination_case_against/
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YHoI9sGolfAXCY8SyybI7gAAAIk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Don't understand
They dont value knowledge, and assume is worth nothing.
That is why the company is in dire straits, of course, but that will not helo the people who got discriminated.
As I always say, change old for black and see if it looks good.
"We want to have a whiter company, right now we have too many black people, sonwe want to make sure the tone changes to a paler one. Think twice before hiring someone black and think more about hiring white people".
Sounds horrible? It should.
Re: Don't understand
If you view employees as "resources" and model your need for them x number of resources for a particular task, you view them as interchangeable and cheaper ones are better.
That model doesn't take into account the fact that employees with more experience in a field can do more work - quite often a lot more work per dollar that makes them a bargain. But assuming different workers do different amounts of work breaks their bean counting models, so they just ignore it.
I've been exposed to a lot of different environments over the years as a consultant (I only take longer term gigs, which have ranged from the shortest at 3 months to the longest at 2 years) and find an immutable set of laws:
10% of the workers get 80% of the work done
80% of the workers get 40% of the work done
You'd think that's impossible, except for the last part of it:
10% of the workers get negative 20% of the work done
Identifying that 10% who do negative work should be the top responsibility for a boss. Either get rid of them, or if that's too difficult give them simple tasks that can't be screwed up. But too often the guys who do negative work are friends with the boss, always willing to work long hours, etc. which makes the boss reluctant to get rid of them. In fact, in many organizations he has an active incentive NOT to get rid of such people - the importance of a manager is determined by their headcount, so if you have guys doing negative work you need more guys doing positive work thereby increasing your headcount and moving you up in the management pecking order!
Re: Don't understand
Conversely very experienced workers can get far better and more reliable results out of less work.
Re: Don't understand
HP/HPE employees has been though quite the pain train from Executives by the time they got to Meg (a she). That resulted in Meg getting a ton of employee negativity from anyone with history there. The more history, often the more negativity. It doesn't take to much employee survey demographics to show that the most negative comments came from those that were older and more years with the company. It is difficult to fix a company in HP/HPE's position at the time much less do it with a negative base.
As an employee there at the time, I would have preferred swapping out layer by layer of leaders that create negative outcomes for employees but that was felt to take too long and was too difficult to identify. It is also difficult for some leaders to balance the best performers work with their attitudes and fix either item when out of wack.
But first to combat the negative interaction, Meg developed a tight inner-circle of execs. Not a bad thought but that resulted in direction (and new terms) that was viewed as a bit off (being nice). The then vs us mindset and negativity grew to be specific to Meg instead of generic to HP's string of harsh execs. With yet another employee survey results in hand, the direction to dump the old negative people to get the ratings and views raised up really would seem logical. Meg is logical and was quite open about getting rid of the old timers with HP.
"Rule Breakers" were those that didn't like the rules the inner-circle came up with and said directly no to. Many of those rules, seeded heavily with inner-circle created terminology, got harsh employee responses as at that point those employees felt there was nothing else for them to loose. HP/HPE had so many mass staff reductions that most thought it would be a matter of time before they get tapped with ever decreasing severance numbers.
I strongly believe that Meg started out trying to fix the hurting HP, but got increasing impatient and non-tolerant with the (talented yet fairly negative) employee base. The result was go eliminate the employees giving her push back (viewed as the old employees) and when that didn't work (after eliminating 10's of thousands more employees), decided to break the company into a bunch of pieces.
Manglement Ducks
When a company is in bad shape the typical response is to shed money losing groups that cannot be made profitable. Whether selling off or shutting down, the effect is the same; the groups are gone. Groups that can be returned to profitability get serious attention and sometimes more resources. However, broad head count reductions are often nothing more than purges to lower the payroll at the expense of long term company health. Customers can and do walk if they think it is in their best interests. Never give a customer a reason to walk.
You've got to admire Whtman's even handedness in all this. Having ensured the staff got fired she handed them the evidence they needed to sue on a plate.
Discrimination
A bit of Racial Discrimination [1]here
A bit of Age Discrimination [2]there
Discrimination makes the Corporate World go round
Discrimination makes the Corporate World go round
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/16/age_discrimination_classaction_against_hp/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/16/former_ibm_sales_manager_fired/
Don't understand
I don't understand the logic behind the (alleged) desire to replace old workers with younger ones - maybe that's why I'm not a captain of industry; or maybe it's just because I'm old.
If the company really was on a tenuous financial footing then surely it would be better off with a bunch of older, experienced workers, with mortgages and kids in university and who will feel they've got a lot riding on the success of the company and might put in a bit more to help out. If he's blaming them for the poor performance of the company then that's a leadership and management issue first and foremost, isn't it? I understand that younger workers might be cheaper, but only on a salary basis; they need training and on-the-job experience where they can make mistakes and learn. They cost more to manage in their first few years with the added risk of losing some of of them just as they become useful. As for the older workers being "rule breakers", surely one argument for employing young people is precisely that - they disrupt and break rules. Maybe he means that the oldies answer back and tell the management when they're being twats.
I think he's seen the pictures of the bean bags, ping-pong tables and play rooms at other more successful companies and attributes their success to the youthful nature of the staff and sees this as an easy way to emulate them.