Case 3:20-cv-01289-JBA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 13
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`Civil Action
`
`
`
`
`Case No. ____________
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`September 1, 2020
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`BRENDA VANDEWEGHE,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
`MACHINES CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Breda VanDeWeghe, for her complaint against Defendant International
`
`Business Machines Corporation, alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action seeking damages based on Defendant’s discriminatory
`
`practices in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et
`
`seq. (“ADEA”), and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Connecticut General
`
`Statutes § 46a-51, et seq. (“CFEPA”). Beginning in 2012, Defendant began terminating
`
`older employees disproportionately to its younger employees, did not offer older
`
`employees open positions, and engaged in other tactics targeting its older employees in
`
`an effort to create a significantly younger workforce. This conduct constitutes unlawful
`
`discrimination under the ADEA and CFEPA. Plaintiff, as an older employee, was treated
`
`less favorably than her younger peers and, as a result of a concerted corporate policy to
`
`create a “younger” workforce, was terminated.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01289-JBA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 2 of 13
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Brenda VanDeWeghe is an individual residing at 115 Colonial
`
`Road, Unit 58, Stamford, Connecticut 06906.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) is a New
`
`York corporation with its principal place of business located at 1 New Orchard Road,
`
`Armonk, New York 10504. IBM does business in the State of Connecticut and, on
`
`information and belief, maintains local offices at Milford and Southbury, Connecticut.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`Jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation exists pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §1331 as Plaintiff asserts a claim under the ADEA. As to those claims not arising
`
`under federal law but clearly so related to the claims in this action within the original
`
`jurisdiction of this Court, jurisdiction exists under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction
`
`as codified in 28 U.S.C. §1367, as well as due to diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §1332 in that the action involves citizens of different states and the amount in
`
`controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b)(2) as the
`
`unlawful conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims took place within the District of
`
`Connecticut.
`
`EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff timely filed administrative charges of discrimination and retaliation
`
`with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (“CHRO”) and the
`
`Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on September 17, 2018 and has
`
`received a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC dated June 3, 2020, as well as a Release
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01289-JBA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 3 of 13
`
`to Sue from the CHRO dated June 3, 2020. Copies are attached hereto as Exhibits A
`
`and B, respectively.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`7.
`
`In February of 2010, Plaintiff began working for IBM as an independent
`
`contractor through a private employment service. Plaintiff worked for IBM’s Global
`
`Business Services (“GBS”), IBM’s consulting services business unit. Her duties involved
`
`recruiting individuals to work for GBS.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff performed well in her recruiting role and in March of 2011, IBM
`
`offered her a position as a “long-term supplemental employee” (“LTS”). As an LTS,
`
`Plaintiff was an IBM employee.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, in or about 2012, IBM instituted a program to
`
`become a more youth-oriented – and demographically youthful – company. Specifically,
`
`IBM embarked on a massive reinvention and rebranding campaign that had two
`
`principal objectives: first, to transform IBM into a “Cognitive Solutions” company deeply
`
`invested in the Cloud, Analytics, Mobile, Security and Social technology markets
`
`(“CAMS”), and second, to change the face of IBM by recruiting and retaining “digitally
`
`native” Millennials, which IBM defined as the generation born after 1980.
`
`
`
`10.
`
`In May of 2014, IBM offered Plaintiff a full-time regular position as a
`
`recruiter for GBS.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01289-JBA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 4 of 13
`
`11. At a 2014 conference titled “Reinvention In The Age of The Millennial,”
`
`IBM expressly linked its success to Millennials, asserting that IBM’s “future growth will
`
`be influenced by the values system of Millennials …” 1
`
`12. Millennials represented a “trillion dollar market” and “billions” of dollars in
`
`potential sales for IBM. To capture the Millennial market, IBM stated it had to “become
`
`one with the Millennial mindset.” “Mindshare converts to marketshare,” IBM wrote, and
`
`IBM’s “leadership in millennial engagement is the ideal value proposition for generating
`
`CAMS pipeline, which is driven by Millennial traits.” 2 According to one IBM
`
`spokesperson, “the secret to capturing the hearts, minds, and most importantly, wallets
`
`of the millennial generation is likely working with you. Your millennial employees are
`
`your most valuable and accessible asset when it comes to successfully marketing your
`
`business to the millennial generation.” 2
`
`13.
`
`In 2014, IBM published “Millennials: How IBM can effectively attract,
`
`engage and retain this emerging generation.” Because Millennials meant big money for
`
`IBM and because IBM “face[d] major competition with [other] companies acquiring
`
`Millennials, both within the tech sector (i.e., Microsoft, Amazon) and beyond,” IBM
`
`developed a “strategy to attract top Millennial talent.”
`
`
`1 See Reinvention in the Age of the Millennial, IBM Center for Applied Insights Blog published December
`16, 2014, accessed at https://ibmcai.com/2014/12/16/reinvention-in-the-age-of-the-millennial/ (copy
`attached as Exhibit C).
`
` See Marketing and the Millennial Mindset – An Interview with IBM’s Samantha Klein, The Marketing
`Journal, June 3, 2016, available at http://www.marketingjournal.org/marketing-andthe-millennial-mindset-
`an-interview-with-ibms-samantha-klein/ (copy attached as Exhibit D).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01289-JBA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 5 of 13
`
`14.
`
`IBM also instituted an “Early Professional” hiring program targeted solely
`
`at young professionals. “The idea is to bring in as much young talent into the workforce
`
`with every given opportunity.” 3
`
`
`
`15.
`
`In June of 2015, IBM changed Plaintiff’s role to North American Executive
`
`Referral Program Manager. Plaintiff’s duties included managing referrals of IBM
`
`executives across all business units, in North America.
`
`16.
`
`IBM’s recruitment targets were divided into two primary groups: early
`
`professional hires (EPHs) and experienced professionals (EPs). EPHs were defined
`
`broadly as persons with less than three (3) years of post-graduate work experience;
`
`EPs were defined broadly as individuals with greater than three (3) years post graduate
`
`work experience.
`
`17.
`
`From the spring of 2014, IBM’s recruiting targets shifted drastically from
`
`EPs to EPHs in an obvious attempt to populate the company’s ranks with younger
`
`employees.
`
`18. Plaintiff’s recruiter position required her attendance at many meetings in
`
`which IBM’s recruitment strategy was explained and discussed for purposes of
`
`implementation. In short, beginning in or about the spring of 2014, IBM human
`
`resources executives repeatedly stressed that targets for recruitment of EPHs would be
`
`substantially increased, with targets for EPs correspondingly decreased.
`
`19.
`
`In her role as a recruiter, Plaintiff received many documents that
`
`emphasized IBM’s approach to establishing a younger corporate demographic. One
`
`
`3 See IBM’s New Team to Focus on Millennials, Business Standard, May 31, 2016, accessed at
`http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/ibm-s-new-team-tofocus-on-millennials-
`116053000677_1.html (copy attached as Exhibit E).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01289-JBA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 6 of 13
`
`such document (attached as Exhibit F) provided to the IBM GBS recruitment team
`
`(including Plaintiff) in 2014 emphasized the direction and focus of recruitment efforts in
`
`favor of EPHs. As noted in Exhibit F, as of 2014, the GBS recruitment team was told to
`
`“[h]ire 80% of all hires as early professions” and to “[b]ackfill open seats with
`
`promotions.” In this way, older employees would be moved out as the more newly-hired
`
`EPHs moved up the ranks.
`
`20. Exhibit F is only one example of many similar documents provided to IBM
`
`recruiters to implement management’s demographic policy. Moreover, on information
`
`and belief, the same policy – supported by the same type of document – were used in
`
`all IBM business units, not just GBS.
`
`21.
`
`“Successor generations X and Y are generally much more innovative and
`
`receptive to technology than baby boomers,” IBM wrote in another publication. 4 “[A]ge
`
`is catching up with Baby Boomers,” whom IBM referred to as “gray hairs” and “old
`
`heads.” 5 Boomers were leaving work in increasing numbers “due to retirement or
`
`disability.” Those still working often needed accommodations for “‘wear and tear’
`
`disabilities like hearing and vision impairment [sic] that older people routinely develop.”6
`
`
`
`
`4 See The Maturing Workforce, Innovation in Workforce Enablement, IBM Business Consulting Services,
`2006, p. 6, available at https://www-935.ibm.com/services/uk/bcs/pdf/maturing-workforce-feus01291-1.pdf
`(copy attached as Exhibit G).
`
` 5
`
` Id. at pp. 2-3.
`
`6
`
` 6
`
` Id. at p. 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01289-JBA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 7 of 13
`
`22.
`
`In a 2015 paper entitled “To buy or not to buy? How Millennials are
`
`reshaping B2B marketing,” 7 IBM again found that Boomer employees were not
`
`motivated to consult their colleagues before making decisions. This was a negative trait
`
`because “[f]or leading organizations, a corporate culture of collaboration and consensus
`
`building is needed.” To create that culture, IBM recommended that companies “[p]ut
`
`Millennials on [their] sales and marketing teams.”
`
`23.
`
`In August, 2016, IBM Marketing Manager Erika Riehle stereotyped
`
`Boomer employees as contributing to five workplace “dysfunctions.” 8 According to IBM,
`
`Boomers are less trusting of their co-workers, less collaborative, less committed, less
`
`accountable and less attentive to results. Compared to younger employees, IBM found
`
`that Boomers were the least likely to understand IBM’s business strategy, least likely to
`
`understand their manager’s expectations of them, least likely to understand what
`
`customers wanted, and the least likely to understand IBM’s brand.
`
`24.
`
`In her position as a GBS recruiter and later as Program Manager for North
`
`American Executive Referrals, Plaintiff was well aware of IBM’s employee recruiting
`
`strategy, as summarized in Paragraphs 9 through 23, above.
`
`25. Plaintiff was a productive and successful employee and her performance
`
`routinely met or exceeded IBM’s expectations.
`
`26.
`
`In March of 2018, Plaintiff was 63 years old.
`
`
`7 Available at http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgibin/ssialias?htmlfid=GBE03658USEN (copy
`attached as Exhibit H).
`
` 8
`
` See Managing Millennials: 5 Common Issues Leaders Face, published August 24, 2016, accessed at
`https://www.ibm.com/blogs/social-business/2016/08/24/managingmillennials-5-common-issues-leaders-
`face/ (copy attached as Exhibit I).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01289-JBA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 8 of 13
`
`27. On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff’s manager, Louise Trudeau (Global Process
`
`Talent Acquisition Leader), informed Plaintiff that her job was being eliminated and that
`
`she was being permanently laid off effective June 28, 2018 as part of a “Resource
`
`Action,” commonly referred to as an RA. Ms. Trudeau said Plaintiff would be offered a
`
`severance package with an employment end date of June 27, 2018. Ms. Trudeau also
`
`said Plaintiff would have a 30-day review period to decide whether to accept the terms
`
`of the Severance Agreement, which would include a month’s severance pay and
`
`subsidized COBRA.
`
`28. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff received a severance package that included the
`
`offer Ms. Trudeau described on March 28, 2018. The severance agreement IBM
`
`presented for Plaintiff’s signature included a release of all claims, with the exception of
`
`age discrimination claims, which Plaintiff could pursue only through arbitration.
`
`29. After being informed of her termination, Plaintiff applied for other positions
`
`with IBM in an effort to continue her employment, but she was not hired for any of them.
`
`30. On March 23, 2018, less than a week before she was given notice of her
`
`termination, Plaintiff read a Propublica investigative article concerning the U.S. Equal
`
`Employment Opportunity Commission’s large-scale investigation of IBM’s discriminatory
`
`employment practices. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9 See Cutting Old Heads at IBM, Propublica, March 22, 2018, available at
`https://features.propublica.org/ibm/ibm-age-discrimination-american-workers/ (attached as Exhibit J).
`.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01289-JBA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 9 of 13
`
`31. Once Plaintiff read the Propublica article, she recognized the
`
`discriminatory methods and practices mentioned, as Plaintiff experienced them first
`
`hand. As noted above, because of her recruitment role, Plaintiff was aware for some
`
`time that IBM had changed its focus to hiring “younger” employees.
`
`32. On May 17, 2018, Propublica issued a companion article focusing on the
`
`U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s large-scale investigation of IBM’s
`
`discriminatory practices. 10
`
`33. Both prior to and after learning of her termination, Plaintiff often checked
`
`the Facebook page, Watching IBM: https://www.facebook.com/alliancemember/.
`
`Plaintiff noticed that virtually all of the individuals who were let go in the March 2018
`
`Resource Action (RA) were over 40 years old.
`
`34.
`
`IBM treated substantially younger persons more favorably by (a) signaling
`
`through its internal and external branding and marketing that IBM wished to hire and/or
`
`retain younger persons, (b) applying subjective reduction-in-force criteria designed to
`
`screen out older workers; (c) not selecting younger persons for reduction, (d) providing
`
`younger workers training opportunities that were not provided to older workers, and (e)
`
`transferring younger employees selected for reduction to other positions in IBM.
`
`35. When IBM conducts a “Resource Action” (IBM speak for a reduction in
`
`force), it shields its youngest employees from lay-off. IBM’s Early Professionals are
`
`exempt from reduction for nine months from their hire date. Only IBM’s youngest
`
`workers receive this special treatment.
`
`
`10 See Federal Watchdog Launches Investigation of Age Bias at IBM, Propublica, May 17, 2018, available
`at https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-watchdog-launchesinvestigation-of-age-bias-at-ibm (attached
`as Exhibit L).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01289-JBA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 10 of 13
`
`36. Not only does IBM shield its youngest workers from lay-off, at the same
`
`time as IBM has laid off thousands of Baby Boomers, it has aggressively recruited and
`
`hired many thousands of Millennials and members of Generations X and Z.
`
`37. The deliberate age-based impact of IBM’s lay-offs was so stark and so
`
`statistically significant that in 2014, IBM stopped requesting ADEA releases from its
`
`terminated older workers. 11 IBM did this to circumvent the Older Workers Benefits
`
`Protection Act (“OWBPA”).12 Although IBM stopped requesting releases of ADEA
`
`claims, it nonetheless required any older worker who accepted IBM’s one month
`
`severance offer to privately arbitrate their ADEA claims, subject to limited discovery and
`
`a full waiver of the right to pursue or participate in a collective action under the ADEA.
`
`38. Age discrimination taints IBM’s resource actions because IBM’s objective
`
`is to make room for younger employees. But for IBM’s move to reinvent itself in the age
`
`of the Millennial and its campaign to attract, engage and retain Millennial talent, older
`
`workers like Plaintiff would not have been let go.
`
`39. Although IBM involuntarily terminated Plaintiff, IBM subsequently recorded
`
`her as having “resigned.” Plaintiff was also informed that IBM intended to code her
`
`termination as “retired” rather than involuntary termination.
`
`
`11 See IBM Halts Practice of Disclosing Ages of Fired Older Workers, AARP Work Matters, May 12, 2014,
`available at http://blog.aarp.org/2014/05/12/ibm-halts-practice-ofdisclosing-fired-older-workers/.
`(“OWBPA”) (attached as Exhibit L).
`
`12 Under OWBPA, an employer requesting an ADEA waiver in connection with a group termination
`program must provide terminated employees with a list of “the job titles and ages of all individuals eligible
`or selected for the program, and the ages of all individuals in the same job classification or organizational
`unit who are not eligible or selected for the program.” 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(H)(ii). Congress mandated the
`disclosure of this comparative information because it believed that “[t]he principal difficulty encountered
`by older workers in [a RIF] is their inability to determine whether the program gives rise to a valid claim
`under the ADEA... The informational requirements set forth in the bill are designed to give all eligible
`employees a better picture of these factors.” S. Rep. No. 101–263, at 67 (1990), reprinted in 1990
`U.S.C.C.A.N. 1509.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01289-JBA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 11 of 13
`
`40. While Plaintiff’s manager stated that the reason for her layoff was job
`
`elimination, Plaintiff was a target of age discrimination.
`
`41. Had Plaintiff been younger, IBM would not have terminated her
`
`employment.
`
`42. Plaintiff’s age was a motivating factor in her selection for termination.
`
`
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`COUNT ONE – AGE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ADEA,
` 29 U.S.C. §623(d)
`
`1-42. Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 42 as if more
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`43. Plaintiff was at all times relevant hereto an “employee” as that term is
`
`defined in 29 U.S.C. §630(f).
`
`44.
`
`IBM is an “employer” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §630(b).
`
`45. At all relevant times hereto, IBM employed more than 20 persons.
`
`46.
`
`IBM discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of age in violation of the
`
`ADEA, 29 U.S.C § 623(a).
`
`47. As a direct and proximate result of the IBM’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered
`
`damages, including but not limited to substantial loss in earnings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01289-JBA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 12 of 13
`
`COUNT TWO – AGE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CFEPA,
` CONN. GEN. STAT. § §46A-60(a)
`
`1-42. Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 42 as if more
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`43. Plaintiff was at all times relevant hereto an “employee” as that term is
`
`defined in Connecticut General Statutes §46a-51(9).
`
`44.
`
`IBM is an “employer” as that term is defined in Connecticut General Statutes
`
`§46a-51(10).
`
`45. At all relevant times hereto, IBM employed more than three persons.
`
`46. Defendant’s conduct, by and through its agents, in treating Plaintiff in a
`
`manner unequal to other employees, discriminatorily denied Plaintiff equal treatment on
`
`the basis of her age in violation of C.G.S. §46a-60(b)(1).
`
`47. As a result of IBM’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer
`
`past and future economic, physical and emotional harm.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01289-JBA Document 1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 13 of 13
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks the following relief:
`
`1. Compensatory damages, including loss of enjoyment of life,
`
`emotional pain and suffering, back pay, bonuses, and the value of all other
`
`employment benefits in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, with
`
`interest from the date when said sums were due;
`
`2. Front pay;
`
`3. Liquidated damages under the ADEA;
`
`4. Punitive damages;
`
`5. Attorneys’ fees;
`
`6. Prejudgment interest and costs; and
`
`7. Such other and further relief as this Court shall deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby
`
`demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF
`BRENDA VANDEWEGHE
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Douglas J. Varga
`By:
` Douglas J. Varga (CT18885)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LUCAS & VARGA LLC
`2425 Post Road, Suite 200
`Southport, CT 06890
`Tel: (203) 227-8400
`Fax: (203) 227-8402
`E-Mail: dvarga@lucasvargalaw.com
`
`Her Attorneys
`
`13
`
`