Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 44
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`GARFIELD REDDICK, on behalf of himself
`individually and all other similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY; HP
`ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC; HEWLETT-
`PACKARD ENTERPRISE CO.; HP, Inc.; and
`DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.:
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Garfield Reddick (“Mr. Reddick” or “Plaintiff”), by and though
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`counsel, Hogue & Belong and in support of his causes of action against
`
`Defendants, states and alleges as follows:
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Reddick files this Complaint against Defendants Hewlett-Packard
`
`Company (“HP Co.”), Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co. (“HPE”), HP Enterprise
`
`Services, LLC (“HPS”), HP, Inc. (“HPI”), and DXC Technology Services, LLC
`
`(“DXC”) (collectively “HP” or “Defendants”) individually and on behalf of all
`
`those similarly situated employees (“Plaintiffs” or the “Class”) as a result of
`
`Defendants’ discrimination against them on the basis of age. Defendants adversely
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 44
`
`altered the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs’ employment, denied Plaintiffs the
`
`opportunities that other employees outside their protected class received, and
`
`terminated their employment, in violation of state and federal law.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants pursuant
`
`to
`
`the Age
`
`Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (“ADEA”).
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Reddick is and, at all times relevant to the Complaint, was a
`
`resident of Georgia. At all relevant times, Reddick was a member of the protected
`
`class of individuals recognized under the ADEA. Plaintiff Reddick was 57 years
`
`old at the time he was terminated by HP.
`
`4.
`
`At all material times, HP conducted business within the United States. One
`
`of HP’s headquarters and principal place of business is located in Alpharetta,
`
`Georgia. Alpharetta, Georgia is one of the locations where HP directs, controls,
`
`and coordinates its business operations.
`
`5.
`
`HP has gone through significant corporate restructuring. Below is an
`
`organizational chart of that restructuring:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 44
`
`
`
`6.
`
`The above-referenced entities are one interrelated enterprise. Despite the
`
`fact that they are different entities, those differences are in name only. All the
`
`aforementioned entities share a unity of interest and all are co-conspirators for the
`
`acts described below.
`
`7.
`
`The above-referenced Defendants are also the joint employers of each other.
`
`Those entities share common control, management, resources, and employment
`
`policies.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 44
`
`8.
`
`The Defendants – even though technically “separate” entities – all utilize the
`
`exact same Workforce Reduction Plan (“WFR”).
`
`9.
`
`The WFR is the centerpiece of Defendants’ discriminatory practices.
`
`10. The implementation of the WFR first began with HP Co. in 2012. Then, in
`
`2015, HP Co. started splintering off
`
`into different affiliated entities.
`
`Notwithstanding splitting off from HP Co, except for the title, the terms of the
`
`WFR remained the same among the various affiliated HP entities.
`
`11. Based on information and belief, Defendants have one concerted effort to
`
`maintain consistency regarding the WFR; as such, they have a team of high-
`
`ranking individuals coordinate the WFR to assure it remains uniform.
`
`12. When one of Defendants’ employees brings an age discrimination claim
`
`premised on the WFR, and then settles that claim, he is made to settle with all of
`
`Defendants’ entities. Accordingly, Defendants’ act as one single integrated
`
`enterprise and the alter egos of one another.
`
`13.
`
`In 2015, Hewlett-Packard Company “theoretically” split in two companies –
`
`HPE and HPI. This split, however, was in name only. After the split, every
`
`shareholder who owned a share of Hewlett-Packard Company was assigned one
`
`share of HPE and one share of HPI. These shareholders retain ultimate control of
`
`all significant decisions and equal financial control.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 5 of 44
`
`14. HPI and HPE’s corporate headquarters1 and nerve centers are located in Palo
`
`Alto, California where they manage, direct, coordinate and control their business
`
`operations.
`
`15. Moreover, the chief executive officers of both HPE and HPI both worked for
`
`Hewlett-Packard Company at the time of the split and they closely communicated
`
`with one another about employees and business operations, including future plans
`
`regarding the WFR.
`
`16. All the aforementioned entities are interrelated and integrated such that each
`
`and every entity had the right to control each others’ employees. Further, the
`
`policies and practices that governed the rights of the employees were all the same.
`
`In other words, all of the entities act in unison and operate, in reality, as a single
`
`entity.
`
`17. HPE and HPI knew about each other’s discriminatory practices described
`
`below, and ratified those practices. Both entities promoted, perpetuated, and they
`
`helped facilitate one another’s age discrimination. Specifically, they both knew
`
`that they favored younger employees over and to the detriment of older employees,
`
`and they both utilized the WFR to enforce their policy of disproportionately
`
`terminating and not rehiring age-protected workers.
`
`
`1 In approximately March 2019, HPE moved its corporate headquarters from Palo
`Alto, California to San Jose, California.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 6 of 44
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`18.
`
`Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3),
`
`and (4), 1367, 2201 and 2202, 42 U.S.C. 2000d-2 and 2000e5(f), and 29 U.S.C. §
`
`621, et seq.
`
`19. This is a suit authorized and instituted pursuant to the Age Discrimination in
`
`Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.
`
`20. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1391(b) because a substantial part of the employment practices and other conduct
`
`alleged to be unlawful occurred in this District.
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES
`
`21. On or before August 31, 2020, Mr. Reddick filed a dual charge against HP
`
`with both the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
`
`concerning HP’s policy and practice that targeted himself and other employees
`
`aged 40 years and older through a pattern and practice of unlawful terminations.
`
`The EEOC issued Mr. Reddick a letter confirming his right-to-sue under federal
`
`laws on September 17, 2020 (the “Right to Sue”). Attached as Exhibit “A” is a
`
`true and correct copy of the Right to Sue.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 7 of 44
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Garfield Reddick Was a Talented and Experienced Employee That Loyally
`Served HP for over 3 years, Until Being Discriminated Against Because of His
`Age.
`
`22. Mr. Reddick was born on January 9, 1963, and is currently 57 years old.
`
`23. Mr. Reddick was first hired by HP as an independent contractor in July
`
`2017. Subsequently, in February 2018, HP promoted Mr. Reddick to a full-time
`
`employee. At the time of his termination, Mr. Reddick held the position of
`
`Technical Solutions Consultant III. Mr. Reddick worked out of HP’s Alpharetta,
`
`Georgia location. Throughout his employment with HP, Mr. Reddick performed
`
`his duties in a satisfactory and competent manner. He consistently received
`
`positive performance reviews, salary increases, and bonuses.
`
`24. Shortly after he was an employee of HP, the company began to discriminate
`
`against Mr. Reddick because of his age. Specifically, HP denied him career
`
`advancement opportunities that were granted to younger less experienced and
`
`qualified employees. On multiple occasions, Mr. Reddick requested that HP
`
`provided him with trainings on HP’s technologies, including, Virtual Connect,
`
`OneView, and GreenLake. HP repeatedly denied Mr. Reddick the opportunity to
`
`participate in these trainings that would have afforded him better job opportunities
`
`at HP. On information and belief, younger employees were provided with these
`
`trainings.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 8 of 44
`
`25. HP repeatedly discriminated against Mr. Reddick by denying him
`
`promotions in favor of younger employees with less experience and inferior
`
`qualifications. Mr. Reddick repeatedly informed his manager Chiquita Valdez that
`
`he was interested in becoming a team lead. On at least one occasion, Mr. Reddick
`
`formally requested to be team lead during a meeting with Valdez because he was
`
`performing team lead tasks and duties. Additionally, HP employees would contact
`
`Mr. Reddick with questions they had about their projects which a team lead would
`
`normally answer.
`
`26. Despite Mr. Reddick’s experience and willingness to take over team lead
`
`duties, HP refused to promote him to the team lead position. On information and
`
`belief, HP repeatedly promoted younger employees to the team lead position. For
`
`instance, almost immediately after hiring a much younger employee by the name
`
`of Daniel Foreman in February 2018, HP promoted Foreman to team lead. Though
`
`Mr. Reddick did not know Foreman’s birthdate, he appeared to be in his early
`
`twenties and had just graduated from college. In comparison, at the time, Mr.
`
`Reddick had over 20 years of experience as an engineer and had worked for major
`
`technology companies. Yet, HP promoted the much younger Mr. Foreman, despite
`
`Mr. Reddick’s vast experience and superior qualifications.
`
`27. Furthermore, on or about December 12, 2019, Mr. Reddick applied for the
`
`position of Solution Center Technical Consultant in HP’s GreenLake technologies
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 9 of 44
`
`– a position where he was eminently qualified. HP refused to hire him for the
`
`position for no other discernable reason but for his age.
`
`28. HP’s discriminatory
`
`treatment
`
`to
`
`its older employees became a
`
`companywide unwritten policy. Comments directed to age protected workers such
`
`as, “when are you planning on retiring,” “You must be getting ready to retire,” and
`
`others were commonplace throughout HP. The unwritten policy was so
`
`consistently applied that it was understood at HP that if there was another wave of
`
`workforce reductions HP would target the age protected employees first.
`
`29.
`
`In fact, between the July 1, 2012 and February 21, 2017, there were 29 age
`
`discrimination complaints against HP just in California.
`
`30. Sometime in 2012, HP began deploying its WFR – which was a scheme to
`
`terminate older employees in favor of younger ones. On or about February 1,
`
`2016, HP updated its WFR and continued deploying it to terminate its older, higher
`
`paid employees and replace them with younger, lower paid employees.
`
`31. HP’s WFR involuntarily terminates employees on a rolling basis. Although
`
`the WFR purports to lay off employees on a neutral basis, it actually is a
`
`companywide practice that disproportionately targets employees who are 40 years
`
`of age or older – a protected class – for termination. HP stated that its purpose in
`
`instituting the WFR was to realign its “organization to further stabilize the business
`
`and create more financial capacity to invest in innovation, but it’s not enough. If
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 10 of 44
`
`[HP is] to position [itself] as the industry leader for the future, then [HP] must take
`
`additional actions that, while tough, are necessary to move [its] business forward.
`
`These actions include a reduction in [HP’s] global workforce.”
`
`32.
`
`In May 2020, HP was still constantly eliminating the jobs of older, age-
`
`protected employees pursuant to its WFR, like Mr. Reddick, and actively replacing
`
`them with younger employees. On or about May 14, 2020, Mr. Reddick was
`
`notified by his manager that his employment was being terminated pursuant to the
`
`2016 WFR, and that his termination date would be May 22, 2020. He was
`
`furnished a “Notification of Severance Materials,” pursuant to which Mr. Reddick
`
`was informed that he would have two weeks as part of his “redeployment period”
`
`to find another job with HP. If he was able to successfully find another position
`
`during that time, then he would be allowed to continue to work without
`
`interruption. If he was not able to find another position at HP within the
`
`redeployment period, then he would be terminated and the 60-day “Preferential
`
`Rehire Period” would commence.
`
`33. During the WFR’s 60-day “Preferential Rehire Period,” Mr. Reddick would
`
`be allowed to apply for jobs within HP, and if he was selected then he would be re-
`
`hired without having to undertake the approval process normally required for a
`
`rehire. During this period, Mr. Reddick applied for nine jobs for which he was
`
`imminently qualified. For instance, on May 13, 2020, Mr. Reddick applied for the
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 11 of 44
`
`position of Management Services Tier 2 in the division of Greenlake. HP refused
`
`to hire Mr. Reddick.
`
`34. Mr. Reddick applied for approximately eight other jobs with HP for which
`
`he was well qualified, but he was not hired because of his age. When HP
`
`terminated Mr. Reddick, HP declined to terminate many of his colleagues and
`
`instead transferred some of Mr. Reddick’s team members to a different shift.
`
`Based on information and belief, the majority of employees transferred to a
`
`different shift in lieu of termination were under the age of 40 years old.
`
`35. At the time of Mr. Reddick’s termination, HP terminated approximately 25
`
`employees within a single “decisional unit” identified by HP pursuant to the WFR.
`
`Approximately eighteen of these terminated employees (over 72%) in this same
`
`decisional unit were over the age of 40 years of age. As a result of HP’s
`
`discrimination against Mr. Reddick because of his age, Mr. Reddick has incurred
`
`significant amounts of lost wages and benefits, and he has suffered and continues
`
`to suffer mental and emotional distress and anguish from the fact and manner of
`
`his involuntary termination and ensuing unemployment resulting therefrom.
`
`36. Throughout his employment with HP, Mr. Reddick performed his duties in a
`
`satisfactory and competent manner. But for the fact that he was 40 years of age or
`
`older (“Age Protected Class”), Mr. Reddick would still be gainfully employed with
`
`HP. In other words, because he was in the Age Protected Class he was targeted
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 12 of 44
`
`and ultimately terminated pursuant to the WFR, and so too were HP’s other
`
`employees in the Age Protected Class.
`
`HP’s Employees Were Older, More Experienced, and Therefore More
`Expensive than the Employees at HP’s Competitors.
`
`37.
`
`In 2012, the median age of HP’s workforce was 39 years old, the oldest in
`
`the tech industry. With one-half of its workforce over the age of 39, HP’s labor
`
`costs were higher than other tech companies. HP employees with 10-19 years of
`
`experience are paid an average of just over $97,000 annually while employees with
`
`20 or more years of experience are paid an average of just over $110,000 annually.
`
`By contrast, HP employees with less than 1 year of experience are paid an average
`
`of just over $64,000 while employees with 1-4 years of experience are paid an
`
`average of just over $65,000.
`
`HP’s Workforce Reduction Plan Sought to Replace Older, Experienced
`Employees with Younger, Cheaper Ones.
`
`38. As referenced above, HP terminates its employees in a so-called structured
`
`lay-off that HP calls Workforce Reduction Plan.
`
`39. HP has stated that its purpose in instituting the Workforce Reduction Plan
`
`was to realign its “organization to further stabilize the business and create more
`
`financial capacity to invest in innovation, but it’s not enough. If [HP is] to position
`
`[itself] as the industry leader for the future, then [HP] must take additional actions
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 13 of 44
`
`that, while tough, are necessary to move [its] business forward. These actions
`
`include a reduction in [HP’s] global workforce.”
`
`40. HP Co. utilized its Workforce Reduction Plan since 2012, and some version
`
`of that plan continues to this day. While the Workforce Reduction Plan was
`
`revised in 2016 and 2019, the different versions of the Workforce Reduction Plan
`
`are not materially different. HP utilized the same Workforce Reduction Plan for
`
`both HPE and HP, Inc. to eliminate employees in the Age Protected Class.
`
`41. HPE and HP, Inc. worked together to coordinate efforts to implement the
`
`Workforce Reduction Plan.
`
`42. On October 9, 2013, in anticipation of continuing deployment of its
`
`Workforce Reduction Plan, HP’s then-CEO Meg Whitman described HP’s staffing
`
`objectives at the company’s “Hewlett-Packard Securities Analyst Meeting”.
`
`Whitman explained that HP was aggressively seeking to replace older
`
`employees with younger employees. On this topic, some of Whitman’s
`
`comments include, but are not limited to:
`
`“. . . a question that is actually completely relevant for all large-
`•
`cap IT companies, which is how do you keep up with this next
`generation of IT and how do you bring people into this company for
`whom it isn’t something they have to learn, it is what they know.”
`
`“. . . we need to return to a labor pyramid that really looks like a
`
`triangle where you have a lot of early career people who bring a lot of
`knowledge who you’re training to move up through your organization,
`and then people fall out either from a performance perspective or
`whatever.”
`
` •
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 14 of 44
`
`“And over the years, our labor pyramid . . . [has] become a bit
`•
`more of a diamond. And we are working very hard to recalibrate and
`reshape our labor pyramid so that it looks like the more classical
`pyramid that you should have in any company and particularly in ES.
`If you don’t have a whole host of young people who are learning how
`to do delivery or learning how to do these kinds of things, you will be
`in real challenges.”
`
` •
`
`“So, this has a couple of things. One is we get the new style of
`
`IT strength and skills. It also helps us from a cost perspective . . . if
`your labor pyramid isn’t the right shape, you’re carrying a lot of extra
`cost. The truth is we’re still carrying a fair amount of extra costs
`across this company because the overall labor pyramid doesn’t look
`the way it should.”
`
` •
`
`“Now, that’s not something that changes like that. Changing
`
`the shape of your labor pyramid takes a couple of years, but we are on
`it, and we’re amping up our early career hiring, our college hiring.
`And we put in place an informal rule to some extent which is, listen,
`when you are replacing someone, really think about the new style of
`IT skills.”
`
` •
`
`“That should be it. I mean, that will allow us to right size our
`
`enterprise services business to get the right onshore/offshore mix, to
`make sure that we have a labor pyramid with lots of young people
`coming in right out of college and graduate school and early in their
`careers. That’s an important part of the future of the company . . . This
`will take another couple of years and then we should be done.”2
`
`
`43. HP’s CFO Cathie Lesjak (“Lesjak”) explained the scheme as a way to
`
`proactively shift the makeup of HP’s workforce towards low-level recent
`
`graduates:
`
`
`2 Judge Freeman characterized Ms. Whitman’s comments as “startling.” See Enoh
`v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co. (N.D.Cal. July 11, 2018, No. 17-cv-04212-BLF)
`2018 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 115688, at *32.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 15 of 44
`
`“And the way I think about the restructuring charge . . ., it’s basically
`catching up. It’s actually dealing with the sins of the past in which we
`have not been maniacally focused on getting the attrition out and then
`just agreeing to replace anyway and not thinking through it carefully
`and thinking through what types of folks we hire as replacements . . .
`We hire at a higher level than what we really need to do. And the
`smarter thing to do would be to prime the pipeline, bring in fresh new
`grads, and kind of promote from within as opposed to hiring a
`really experienced person that is going to be much more expensive.”
`
`44. HP’s Manager of Employee Relations for the Americas, Sheri Bowman,
`
`explained that it was critical for some HP organizations to reduce expenses, and
`
`one way they had done so was by changing the composition of their workforce:
`
`The focus within the different organizations has evolved a lot over the
`past four or five years because of the turnaround that we have been
`trying to achieve within the organization. And so there is a
`tremendous focus on increasing revenue, increasing client satisfaction
`to help increase revenue and reducing, you know, overall expenses.
`So that has just resulted in some organizations modifying their
`workforce to try to get to the right labor pyramid to achieve their
`business goals.
`
`45. Echoing the policy espoused by Ms. Whitman, one Senior Vice President,
`
`Chief Information Officer stated about the WFR “we’re getting rid of the old
`
`engineers and bringing in young engineers in their place.”
`
`46. Consistent with HP’s policy of eliminating the older members of its
`
`workforce in favor of younger cheaper workers, the employee selected to be
`
`terminated pursuant to the WFR is initially recommended by the managerial
`
`employees. That manager or managers then notifies HP’s human resource
`
`department of their selection. The selection is then evaluated by the human
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 16 of 44
`
`resources generalist to assure the selection is the “right fit” for termination,
`
`meaning if the selection conforms with Meg Whitman’s directive to terminate
`
`older employees while retaining the younger employees. Notably, the selection is
`
`not based on merit or performance. Rather, if the selected employee is old enough,
`
`then the human resource department approves the selection and notifies the
`
`Workforce Management Team to prepare the proper paperwork to be delivered to
`
`the selected employee by his or her manager(s). Conversely, if the selection is too
`
`young, then the manager or managers are asked to select another employee.
`
`47. Further, internal HP documentation heavily favors employees from the
`
`younger “millennial” generation to other older generations. To HP, employees
`
`from the millennial generation were highly desirable; as such, HP placed an
`
`emphasis on retaining and attracting as many “millennial” generation employees
`
`while terminating or retiring employees from the older generations.
`
`48. On or about February 1, 2016, HP continued deploying its WFR, which
`
`continued the scheme specifically targeted to terminate its older and replace them
`
`with younger,
`
`lower paid employees. HP’s Workforce Reduction Plan
`
`involuntarily terminates employees on a rolling basis. Although the WFR Plan
`
`purports to lay off employees on a neutral basis, it actually is a companywide
`
`mechanism by which HP carries out
`
`its above-described policy of
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 17 of 44
`
`disproportionately and discriminatorily targeting employees in the Age Protected
`
`Class for termination.
`
`49. HP maintains meticulous records about each employee, including his or her
`
`date of birth and age. Pursuant to HP’s policy, those high-level HP employees
`
`responsible for carrying out the implementation of the WFR used this age data in
`
`order to act with the specific intent to terminate those employees of the Age
`
`Protected Class, not for any work-related reason.
`
`50. As an example, as of 2015, out of all of the employees HP terminated
`
`pursuant to the WFR in a single State, 85% of those terminated were age protected
`
`employees (i.e., age 40 or older).
`
`51. Further, pursuant to the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”)
`
`in a group layoff (which the Workforce Reduction Plan was), HP was required to
`
`advise those affected employees of who in their “Decisional Unit” was also laid off
`
`and who was kept, identified by title and age. 29 C.F.R. ⸹ 1625.22 defines
`
`“Decisional Unit” as “that portion of the employer's organizational structure from
`
`which the employer chose the persons who would be offered consideration for the
`
`signing of a waiver and those who would not be offered consideration for the
`
`signing of a waiver. The term ‘decisional unit’ has been developed to reflect the
`
`process by which an employer chose certain employees for a program and ruled
`
`out others from that program.”
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 18 of 44
`
`52. The attachments identifying the “decisional unit” that HP provides to those
`
`employees it selects for the WFR are grossly inadequate, deceptively small, and
`
`intended to mislead the Age Protected Class in violation of the OWBPA. For
`
`instance, the WFR is a structured layoff and it applies to all of HP, regardless of its
`
`hundreds of different divisions and departments.
`
` When HP began
`
`its
`
`implementation of the WFR in 2012, it had 350,000 employees. Since that time,
`
`HP has splintered off into several different joint companies’, yet still employing
`
`the exact same WFR as one another.
`
`53. Despite the WFR applying to all of HP’s employees (and by extension all of
`
`the nation and the state of Georgia), it only provides the above-referenced
`
`necessary disclosure for an absurdly small portion of the company so that its
`
`employees do not have a complete picture of HP’s discriminatory practices.
`
`54. As part of the WFR, thousands of now former employees selected for
`
`termination nationwide are offered a small severance in exchange for signing a
`
`“Waiver and General Release Agreement.” But, contrary to the requirements of
`
`the OWBPA, the HP employees selected for the WFR are provided a ridiculously
`
`small list of the employees and ages of those who are terminated. Rather than
`
`providing a larger department or division wide list comprising the true “decisional
`
`unit,” HP provided each terminated employee only a tiny fraction of this list,
`
`sometimes containing less than 10 employees/ages. This sparse, deceptive, and
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 19 of 44
`
`incomplete disclosure clearly violates the OWBPA. Thus, contrary to the false and
`
`express representations HP made to its age protected employees, every employee
`
`in the Age Protected Class who signed HP’s Waiver and General Release
`
`Agreement may nevertheless participate in this class action because the release is
`
`unenforceable pursuant to the OWBPA.
`
`55. Notwithstanding the foregoing, even a preliminary investigation into those
`
`sparse and incomplete disclosures of the ages of employees selected for
`
`termination and the signing of a Waiver and General Release Agreement reveal
`
`that older employees were substantially overrepresented for selection for
`
`termination under the WFR. In other words, available data shows that older
`
`workers were substantially more likely than younger workers to be terminated
`
`under the WFR.
`
`HP Executed the Workforce Reduction Plan That Targeted Older Employees.
`
`56. By May of 2020, HP was still consistently eliminating the jobs of older, age-
`
`protected employees, like Mr. Reddick, and actively replacing them with younger
`
`employees.
`
`57. Consistent with HP’s strategy to eliminate the older members of its
`
`workforce in favor of younger workers, when selecting which employee to
`
`terminate under its WFR, HP’s goal is to single out those workers who it thinks
`
`“will not fit the bill long term in [the] team growing to [an advisory] position.”
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 20 of 44
`
`58. Although allegedly neutral on its face, HP’s terminations under its WFR are
`
`actually targeted to discriminate and eliminate older, age-protected workers in
`
`grossly disproportionate numbers. The WFR does not take into account
`
`performance reviews or evaluations, so the employee selected for the Workforce
`
`Reduction Plan is not based on merit, but based merely on age.
`
`59. HP’s Workforce Reduction Plan is implemented on a rolling basis. That is,
`
`it does not terminate HP’s employees all at once. But, it serves as a mechanism for
`
`HP to terminate members of a protected class of employees whenever it wants. HP
`
`is still engaged in the systematic elimination of its age protected class of
`
`employees. That is, the discriminatory acts originally commenced with the
`
`implementation of the WFR in 2012 and those discriminatory acts continue to this
`
`day, perpetrated by the decisionmakers of HP’s WFR.
`
`HP’s “Fake” Measures that Purportedly Helped Terminated Employees in the
`Age Protected Class to Retain Employment or be Rehired in a Different
`Capacity were Illusory.
`
`60. Theoretically, HP employees terminated under the Workforce Reduction
`
`Plan were and are “encouraged” to apply for other jobs for a limited amount of
`
`time. Specifically, HP has a two-week “Redeployment Period” and a 60-day
`
`“Preferential Rehire Period.”
`
`61. During the two-week Redeployment Period, if an employee was able to
`
`successfully find a job at HP, s/he would be allowed to continue work without
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 21 of 44
`
`interruption. If a HP employee was unable to find another job within his/her two-
`
`week Redeployment Period, however, that employee enters into the “Preferential
`
`Rehire Period.” The Preferential Rehire Period was 60 days. If an HP employee
`
`was hired during the Preferential Rehire Period, then s/he would be rehired without
`
`having to undertake the approval process normally required for a rehire. While the
`
`Preferential Rehire Period is supposed to be neutral in its application, it is not
`
`applied neutrally because it adversely impacts disproportionate numbers of age
`
`protected employees. In fact, during the Preferential Rehire Period, HP’s older
`
`employees are almost never rehired. If older employees are even offered a job, the
`
`job is rarely, if at all, comparable to the one that employee held before he or she
`
`was terminated.
`
`62. Since August 2013, HP’s Human Resources has incorporated written
`
`guidelines that require HP to hire mostly younger employees. Specifically, those
`
`guidelines state: “New corporate requisition policy requires 75% of all External
`
`hire requisitions be ‘Graduate’ or ‘Early Career’ employees.” Thus, age-protected
`
`employees who were terminated under the WFR and who sought rehiring under the
`
`Preferential Rehiring Period, were fighting an uphill battle against HP’s inherent
`
`prerogative to hire a disproportionate percentage of younger “early career” and
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04597-CAP-RDC Document 1 Filed 11/10/20 Page 22 of 44
`
`“recent graduates”.3 Thus, available job postings included discriminatory language
`
`that made clear that HP was looking for a “younger” employee to fill those
`
`available jobs. Accordingly, age-protected employees were rejected for rehiring
`
`under the Preferential Rehire Period provision of the WFR in disparately greater
`
`numbers than their younger peers who applied either externally or pursuant to the
`
`Preferential Rehire Period provision. Older employees were well aware of the fact
`
`that many of their age-protected peers had been selected for termination under the
`
`WFR. In the e