#ageism

I feel sad, guilty and burdened. I didn’t choose HR as a career to ruin lives or to help a greedy, mismanaged company do bad deeds. This is not meant to scare and I am fearful to post as I am under NDA but I need to help if I can. In a few weeks there will be another layoff. If you are over 50, overpaid, under performing, or your function can be AI replaced you are at risk. Please be prepared. I will not log into this site again, and I will not be able to provide any more information. I am praying for all of you who may be impacted.

Why is it always the older, experienced, and high performing employees are shown the door? We have plenty of those who do nothing all day and yet they stay. Why? How come that keeps happening?

103 million verdict cause Liberty Mutual laid off due to a ge and forced some to retire. Got rid of good and loyal workers. Read article sounds like what happened to us.

Just had manager discussion and was notified last day will be July 2. Normal cr-ppy US severance of 3 months. Went through the normal we're not picking people because of age and the 3 others RA'd in a small team were all of 45. One people was listed who is not being RA'd in that same age range... so, definitely older, more expensive people are being targeted.

Have you, or anyone you know, experienced age discrimination at RA? What were the circumstances? i.e. passed over for promotion, pressured to retire, no response to job applications....

The company is shrinking and is younger people need the roles to open up to survive. The pension doesn’t grow that much after 55 and certainly after 60 it really slows down. Do us a favor and help us get to 55.

Does anyone know of a ki-ler lawyer in austin, tx area to take on age targeted LR cases in latest layoffs?

The Linked in posts all seem to follow this format. "After X years at Fidelity my role has been eliminated, but I am so grateful, humbled....blah blah for a couple of paragraphs... I've had the privilege...I never felt so valued...as a move on to my next chapter, I do so with immense gratitude and respect for everything that Fidelity stands for"

Then on the opposite spectrum I see recent graduates posting about how excited they are to share that they accepted an offer at Fidelity in some customer service role.

Is there some template that Fidelity is suggesting that people use?

It also feels like Fidelity does not want older people in the organization.

The orgs in MT has average ahe around 50+.
And 20-30% folks are greater than 60.

Do you think att has to get rid off folks who are 60+

What's going on here? Is this just my group or a wider pattern?

It's obvious that performance wasn't criteria for this round, so I'm wondering what was. Judging by the ages of those affected, I'm guessing pay played a significant role in determining who to put on the list. I could be wrong, though, and it could be something else entirely.

I lost count of how many layoffs have happened in the past 8 years. Today's is the worst. Our already skeleton crew was cut in half. All of us are already over worked. This place is going to be a disgruntled sweatshop in day or 2. And they layed of the folks with a future. 3 of us are close to retirement and informed our managers that a layoff would be welcome for us. Nope, they skipped us and went for younger generation. Who is going to carry this company forward? NetApp... where stupid thrives.

But I am noticing that those affected are mostly 50+. Not a good look for the company.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-need-younger-people-inside-growing-fear-age-att-jayson-gnall-7dzuc/

TRend at Bnym, and it’s not subtle.
More and more employees are being “RIF’d” under the disguise of performance issues — even when their track record is spotless. Let’s call it what it is: ageism and salary targeting.Batman and Robin don’t want to admit they’re cutting older, higher‑paid workers, so they hide behind manipulated evaluations and vague buzzwords like “not agile enough,” “not aligned with culture,” or “needs more energy.” It’s a cost‑cutting strategy dressed up as performance management.
This isn’t about merit.
It’s about money, age, and who they think they can push out quietly.
I should have fought your bullsh-t but didn't. I hope others do and this POS company gets what they deserve.

Make of that what you will, but it’s getting harder not to notice certain patterns.

I was laid off after more than 15 years at Wells. I survived the previous rounds, but I was finally caught up. Our CEO made it no secret this would continue through 2026. Each round I survived I had a little hope. Make no mistake it doesn't matter if you are a top performer or not. I have seen top talent just be let go over and over. It will continue.

I knew this might be a possibility, so I have been looking for jobs for months. It's been scary with this economy and job market. No bites. Had resume reviewed, joined job boards, joined talent agency/groups. The only thing that has come up is short term contracts but no real bites. Ageism is real and it's scary as he-l. All I can do is keep trying, take some time to up-skill and get some additional feathers in my resume cap, but I would be lying if I didn't say this job market is brutal.

Make no mistake. Wells doesn't care about the loyalty and commitment you have shown to them no matter how many years of service. Your performance isn't a guarantee either. Over the years I have jumped when Wells said jump. Traveled more than I can remember, worked nights, worked weekends, putting in 50-hour work weeks. Been a repeated top performer. They expect loyalty from you but don't expect loyalty in return. Don't be fooled. None if it matters in the end. You are just a number to Wells.

We’ve angered and alienated the older workforce, which incentivized them to not give a flying f about knowledge sharing and transfer with younger workers.

The younger workers have no hope or real path forward outside of nepotism and generational wealth that boosts them up despite the sh-t we’re all sinking in.

The rich get richer and the AI/offshoring effort booms…

I am over 50 and considering applying at Humana but like many companies that seem to have become ageist and removing older folks first, I am concerned about applying here.

To those of you that either still work there or those who used to work there think they may have been discriminated against because of their age, I repeat tje same question as in the post title.

Is Humana an ageist company?

Thanks in advance.

This comment from a Fidelity spokesperson gives me pause and makes me wonder what the median age of those impact by the RIF is.

I’m 52 and was laid off last week. If you were laid off, share your age below.

“These changes are about getting the right combination of skills in place for where Fidelity is headed, including creating more room for early-career, hands-on engineering roles and streamlining senior leadership layers,” a company spokesperson said in a statement. https://www.masslive.com/business/2026/05/fidelity-to-lay-off-800-workers-but-hire-thousands-more.html

Meta got sued for age discrimination. See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/called-them-dinosaurs-lawsuits-began-ai-bias-hiring-more-vanderburg-wff9c.

The data cited in the lawsuit is stark:

Employees over 40 were 1.5x more likely to be laid off than employees under 40.
Employees over 50 were 2.5x more likely to be terminated than their younger colleagues.

The workforce reductions last December appeared to disproportionately affect employees with older ages. Is there any public data support my observation?

If you are fired, please do the below analysis on this doc you get: Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)

If you are older than 40 (or 50?) years old, you should get a OWBPA document (it shows ages and job titles of the fired people). MAKE SURE to save it locally immediately!!! If you view it and then leave the page, the document will show as read and you may not be able to access it again (at least that happened to me). You may be able to get GEMINI to help you do the analysis (turn AI against big dirty red!).

My guess it would be eye opening (to a judge:)) to see the breakout/comparison of job title and age for higher paying jobs (engineering and technology) versus job titles and age for lower paying jobs (help desk, admin assistants, etc..). Would not be surprising to see this output - just as an example of what might be uncovered: 50 people that are 55+ years old fired and all in high paying jobs.... and then another 50 people that are 20 to 35 years old and all in lower paying jobs (and MUCH easier to backfill or put a contractor in later). If you just looked at ages, you would say it looks ok. But, if you included wages, AND job titles, you would see a definite bias in the example.

Seems that employees over 50 were the largest group impacted today. Experience means nothing, loyalty means nothing, dedication means nothing. With age comes experience and sadly with longevity comes a higher expense.

What is needed is a class action suit against the company for age discrimination.

Four people, all in their 50s and above. I'll be honest, I have no idea how we're supposed to continue without them, especially since we were stretched thin as it is.

G6,5,4 - majority are youngsters getting laid off. Runway if you are young this is a company for dinosaurs

These people keep getting spared every layoff and they're the ones at the water cooler, long overdue for retirement. They are good at showing up on time in a crisply ironed shirt with a positive attitude, much like the old IBMers. But as far as carrying the load when half the team gets axed (strictly according to their manager's own specific preferences and prejudices), the work output won't scale accordingly. They have one speed. The speed of every telephone company. Because every telephone company is comprised of them.

Once you hit a certain age, they start looking for reasons to push you out. I've seen it happen to three people in my team. They treat older workers like garbage.

Especially the 50+ crowd. Then maybe a few slackers. But management/leadership titles? Absolutely safe.

Confirmed 5% RIF including Dinosaurs who would be forced to retire.

Is it true that at Google employees over 50 are viewed as not being in touch with technology and thus, forced out or laid off? I’ve heard this affects women more.

Too many reports of people 55+ being let go in disproportionate numbers.

Anyone from the previous round willing to share their age and salary grade? Curious if the same age groups or grades are being targeted in the cuts rumored for today.

Source below. Summary Below.

• Tech layoffs are disproportionately affecting workers over 40, especially higher-paid senior individual contributors, middle managers, and support roles that are harder to tie directly to revenue.
• Companies are using cost-focused, data-driven layoff models, so roles with high salary costs and lower immediate billable impact become easier targets.
• Cutting experienced workers may improve short-term margins, but it can weaken long-term capability, deal quality, delivery, client trust, and workforce stability.

Tens of thousands of tech workers across the world have lost their jobs this year. Within this global wave of job cuts, one age group is being hit harder than most - professionals in their 40s and above.

The numbers tell a stark story. Last year, nearly 240,000 tech workers were laid off globally. In 2026, the trend is continuing, with over 73,000 jobs already cut across 95 companies so far, including firms like Meta, Oracle, and Microsoft. However, layoffs are not hitting every age group in the tech workforce uniformly. Data shows that higher-paid mid to senior professionals, many in their 40s and 50s, are more exposed to job cuts.

One key reason is their high salary levels. Workforce studies show that companies often cut costs by trimming higher salaries first, and that often overlaps with age. Last year, 64% of workers aged 50 and above said they had experienced age discrimination, and 22% said they felt pushed out specifically because of their age.

There is also a shift in how layoffs are happening. Instead of one-off decisions, many companies now rely on structured, data-driven models. These systems evaluate cost to company, role relevance, and impact on revenue generation. The further a role is from directly generating revenue, the more vulnerable it becomes when a company decides to cut jobs.

As a result, a specific profile is emerging during layoffs. These include mid to senior individual contributors, middle management roles, and support functions such as HR and marketing. While these roles are critical to a company’s operations, they are often harder to link directly to revenue, making them easier targets during cost-cutting cycles.

Surveys from recently laid-off workers reveal that up to 44% of companies have already reduced management layers, and 20% of organizations may cut over half of middle management roles by the end of 2026. This is happening at a time when the job market itself is becoming more uncertain, with multiple economic pressures still playing out.

It remains unclear where the economy is heading. There are shocks to oil and energy prices, along with increases in other costs. It is not yet clear how consumers will respond, and therefore how jobs will be affected in the coming months. The outlook is not expected to be favorable.

This uncertainty is also changing how people approach their careers, especially those who are out of work or trying to re-enter the workforce. The job market terrain is uneven, and in the near term it may not be encouraging for job seekers. At the same time, a trend known as job hugging is emerging, where those who already have jobs are choosing to stay put rather than take risks. This suggests that while current employees may retain their roles, opportunities for those trying to enter or return to the workforce are more limited.

For older workers, the challenge does not end with layoffs. Re-entering the workforce is significantly harder. Data shows that workers over 50 remain unemployed nearly twice as long as younger workers. Only 55% of those aged 55 to 64 find new jobs within three years. For those over 65, that number drops to just 34%, meaning 66% never find another job. More strikingly, one in four workers aged 50 to 65 never return to work after losing their job.

There is also a perception gap. A workplace survey found that 74% of older workers believe their age is a barrier to getting hired. At the same time, age discrimination complaints continue to rise each year, as employers often prefer younger and less expensive workers.

At the industry level, tech companies are reshaping how they allocate spending. More investment is going into artificial intelligence and automation, and this shift is influencing hiring and firing patterns. While layoffs continue across the tech sector, the data shows a clear trend - professionals over 40 are facing increasing challenges in the workplace.

An economist explained that older age groups are affected significantly, but the primary driver is arithmetic rather than intent. A senior individual contributor in their 40s or 50s may cost a company significantly more than a mid-level engineer, often two to four times as much. When companies face pressure to reduce costs by even a small percentage, they must decide whether to reduce billing or reduce headcount. In many cases, they choose to cut headcount, specifically targeting non-billable or less directly revenue-linked roles.

Layoffs are essentially a cost reset. The 40-plus workforce becomes the fastest lever because they sit at the intersection of high cost and low immediate measurability of output. In many service-based models, financial performance is tracked closely through billings and margins. Work that does not directly tie to invoices, such as governance, architecture oversight, and coordination, becomes more vulnerable even if it is important.

There is also what is referred to as a pyramid problem. Organizations typically rely on a structure with more junior employees and fewer senior ones. Over time, promotions and hiring can inflate the number of senior roles. During downturns, companies attempt to restore this balance by cutting higher-cost positions.

While it may seem short-sighted, companies often focus on immediate financial outcomes. As one executive put it, cost is visible every month, while value is harder to measure. Cutting senior roles improves margins quickly in the short term, even though it may erode capability over time in ways that are harder to quantify.

Experience becomes most valuable in uncertain situations such as large deals, complex migrations, crisis management, and pricing strategy. These are not routine tasks and require judgment developed over years. However, removing experienced workers does not immediately break systems. Instead, the impact appears gradually, making it easier for companies to justify cuts in the short term.

Over time, the consequences begin to show. In pre-sales, experienced professionals add credibility, and their absence can reduce success rates in securing large deals. In delivery, projects may slip, rework can increase, and escalation cycles can become longer. While younger teams can handle well-defined tasks, they may struggle when unexpected challenges arise.

Within 12 to 18 months, these issues can lead to client dissatisfaction and churn. Some countries approach this differently. For example, in Germany, experienced workers are more directly tied to revenue through client relationships, product customization, and problem-solving. Removing them would have an immediate negative impact on revenue, so they are better protected.

The difference lies not in culture but in where experience sits within the value chain. In some systems, experience is directly linked to revenue generation, while in others it is positioned in roles that are easier to cut during cost reductions.

Overall, while layoffs continue across the tech sector, the evidence suggests a consistent pattern. Older, higher-paid professionals are disproportionately affected due to cost structures, organizational design, and the increasing use of data-driven decision-making in workforce management.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPSXhKdeXpc

A former Wells Fargo Advisors broker in Brookfield, Wisconsin, has filed a lawsuit accusing the wirehouse of firing him because of his age.

Kenneth J. Schneider, who spent his entire 50-year career with Wells and predecessor firms, claimed that he was terminated at the age of 78 “for the sole pretextual reason” that he used a swear word in the office when talking with his wife, who also worked at the firm, according to a complaint filed last week in U.S. District Court in Wisconsin.

Local Wells managers had “been trying to get Schneider to retire for years,” and younger advisors were given more lenient, “progressive discipline” for similar violations of the firm’s professional conduct policies, according to the complaint.

“Wells Fargo willfully took adverse actions against Schneider because of his age,” the ex-broker’s lawyers wrote in the complaint.

https://www.advisorhub.com/wells-fargo-faces-age-discrimination-claim-from-50-year-industry-vet/

For some reason, this time I've seen fewer older employees affected than usual. Am I wrong?

How many years does one need to grow a company? A lot of people have been RIF’d due to age, pay, or non-performance.
I had to perform each year! I did not get 5 years to show if I’m worth my salary. And did not have a parachute of $42m to go away either

I say the experiment is over, let Sarah and her C-Suite go and find a true leader and visionary. Not a glorified data analyst.

Basically this is a way for a company to downsize older workers (and their higher salaries ) without breaking the law. Its not so much about making it less brutal.

The rest of the workforce is told it's less brutal because those who take severence are about to retire anyway. It simply accelerates that choice.

Legal Requirements

Employers typically offer severance in exchange for the employee signing a General Release of Claims, which prevents them from suing the company for wrongful termination or discrimination.

Review Periods: Under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), employees aged 40+ must be given 21 days to review an individual agreement (45 days for group layoffs) and 7 days to revoke their signature.
The federal WARN Act requires employers with 100+ workers to provide 60 days' notice for mass layoffs. Failure to provide notice often results in the employer paying 60 days of salary as a penalty, which effectively acts as a mandated severance

In case you missed the earnings report, they have reduced staff by 3% and plan on aggressively reducing staff to be replaced by AI. They consider employees liablities not assets. I have tried and tried to get out but being middle aged is tough. The discrimination is real. I hope the younger generation leaves and doesn't deal with this BS. BTW the employees that are not coming into the office? Their bonuses were NOT impacted. This means they were effectually making more than the rest of us su-kers going in. Unreal.

Another age discrimination lawsuit articlegoing. Funny how at&t claims cursing is code of conduct violation and potty mouth Legg does it all the time.

Link

https://www.nj.com/news/2026/04/att-faces-age-discrimination-suit-after-firing-longtime-nj-employee.html

Some of article below

A longtime AT&T employee in New Jersey has filed a federal lawsuit alleging age discrimination and wrongful termination.

The suit, filed March 31 in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, claims Daniel A. Zuckerman, 62, was demoted and ultimately fired last year without warning in retaliation for opposing discrimination and seeking legal advice.

A longtime AT&T employee in New Jersey has filed a federal lawsuit alleging age discrimination and wrongful termination.

A spokesperson for AT&T called the lawsuit “baseless,” and said the company will defend itself in court.

“This employee was not a victim of discrimination: he was given a new job assignment during an organizational restructure, and he was terminated for violating our Code of Business Conduct,” the spokesperson said.

Zuckerman, of Hillsborough, started his career at AT&T in May 1985, according to the lawsuit. He spent nearly 40 years climbing the ranks before he was fired from the company’s Bedminster office on Jan. 27, 2025.

At the time, he held the role of level-three director as a member of technical staff. However, days before his termination, he was notified that he would be demoted to level two associate director in cybersecurity, effective Feb. 1, according to the complaint.

Zuckerman claims he has never received disciplinary action or a negative performance evaluation during his tenure.

The lawsuit alleges that AT&T maintains a corporate culture of age discrimination which encourages older employees to leave voluntarily, and favors younger employees.

Zuckerman also claims he was instructed in 2014 not to hire a highly qualified 56-year-old candidate because of the candidate’s age.

The lawsuit says the age discrimination originated with top leadership. It points to remarks by former CEO Randall Stephenson in 2016 about AT&T’s aging workforce and need to reinvent itself, and alleges current CEO John Stankey made “outrageously offensive” ageist statements.

During a July 2023 town hall, Stankey stated that the workforce needed younger employees to better match the U.S. population, according to the suit.