`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 1 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 1 of 38
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IBM ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`21-CV-6296 (JMF)
`21-CV-6297 (JMF)
`21-CV-6308 (JMF)
`21-CV-6310 (JMF)
`21-CV-6312 (JMF)
`21-CV-6314 (JMF)
`21-CV-6320 (JMF)
`21-CV-6322 (JMF)
`21-CV-6323 (JMF)
`21-CV-6325 (JMF)
`21-CV-6326 (JMF)
`21-CV-6331 (JMF)
`21-CV-6332 (JMF)
`21-CV-6337 (JMF)
`21-CV-6340 (JMF)
`21-CV-6341 (JMF)
`21-CV-6344 (JMF)
`21-CV-6349 (JMF)
`21-CV-6351 (JMF)
`21-CV-6353 (JMF)
`21-CV-6355 (JMF)
`21-CV-6375 (JMF)
`21-CV-6377 (JMF)
`21-CV-6380 (JMF)
`21-CV-6384 (JMF)
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 2 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 2 of 38
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Overview ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`The Rusis Named Plaintiffs’ EEOC Charges .............................................. 7
`
`The Timeliness Dispute in Plaintiffs’ Arbitrations ........................................ 8
`
`The Impact of the Confidentiality Provision in IBM’s Arbitration
`Agreement .................................................................................................. 9
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary Judgment Standard .................................................................. 10
`
`The Provision in IBM’s Arbitration Agreement Purporting to Waive
`the Piggybacking Rule is Unenforceable .................................................. 11
`
`The Confidentiality Provision within IBM’s Arbitration Agreement is
`Also Unenforceable .................................................................................. 21
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 3 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 3 of 38
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Adams v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
`67 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................... 19
`
`American Family Life Assurance Co. of New York v. Baker,
`778 Fed. App’x 24 (2d Cir. 2019) ....................................................................... 22, 25
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
`563 U.S. 333 (2011) ............................................................................................. 4, 23
`
`Balan v. Tesla Motors Inc.,
`2019 WL 2635903 (W.D. Wash. June 27, 2019) ..................................................... 24
`
`Bogacz v. MTD Products, Inc.,
`694 F. Supp. 2d 400 (W.D. Pa. 2010) ...................................................................... 20
`
`Butcher v. Gerber Prods. Co.,
`8 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Castellanos v. Raymours Furniture Co., Inc.,
`291 F. Supp. 3d 294 (E.D.N.Y. March 12, 2018) ..................................................... 18
`
`Cerjanec v. FCA US, LLC,
`2017 WL 6407337 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 15, 2017) ........................................................ 17
`
`Cole v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Grp., Inc.
`2012 WL 6047741 (D. Kan. Dec. 5, 2012) ............................................................... 18
`
`Collins v. New York City Transit Authority,
`305 F.3d 113 (2d. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................... 29
`
`Cronas v. Willis Group Holdings Ltd.,
`2007 WL 2739769 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2007) ........................................ 12, 13, 15, 20
`
`Davis v. Mills
`194 U.S. 451 (1904) ................................................................................................. 16
`
`DeGraff v. Perkins Coie LLP,
`2012 WL 3074982 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2012) ........................................................... 22
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 4 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 4 of 38
`
`EEOC v. Comm. Office Prods. Co.,
`486 U.S. 107 (1988) ................................................................................................. 16
`
`Estle v. International Business Machines Corp.
`2020 WL 5633154 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2020) .......................................................... 21
`
`Estle v. International Business Machines Corp.,
`No. 20-3372 (2d Cir.) ............................................................................................... 21
`
`Fed. Exp. Corp. v. Holowecki
`552 U.S. 389 (2008) ................................................................................................. 16
`
`Friedmann v. Raymour Furniture Co., Inc.
`2012 WL 4976124 (E.D. N.Y. Oct. 16, 2012) ........................................................... 18
`
`Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.
`500 U.S. 20 (1991) ............................................................................................ passim
`
`Graham Oil v. Arco Products Co.
`43 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................... 18
`
`Grayson v. K Mart Corp.
`79 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. April 9, 1996) ...................................................................... 13
`
`Guyden v. Aetna, Inc.,
`544 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................... 25
`
`Hagan v. Katz Communications, Inc.,
`200 F. Supp. 3d 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ...................................................................... 17
`
`Hammaker v. Brown & Brown, Inc.
`214 F. Supp. 2d 575 (E.D. Va. 2002) ....................................................................... 21
`
`Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co.,
`895 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1990) ......................................................................... 4, 5, 22, 26
`
`Holowecki v. Federal Exp. Corp.
`440 F.3d 558 (2d Cir. 2006) ................................................................................. 3, 12
`
`Hoober v. Movement Mortgage, LLC,
`382 F. Supp. 3d 1148 (W.D. Wash. 2019) ............................................................... 24
`
`Johnson v. Killian,
`680 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................... 11
`
`Jones v. American Postal Workers Union
`192 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 5 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 5 of 38
`
`Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless LLC,
`223 Ill.2d 1 (Ill. 2006) ............................................................................................... 24
`
`Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co.,
`446 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 19
`
`Larsen v. Citibank FSB,
`871 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 2, 4, 22
`
`Lewis v. Harper Hosp.
`241 F.Supp.2d 769 (E.D. Mich. 2002) ...................................................................... 18
`
`Livingston v. City of Chicago
`2019 WL 194848 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2019) ................................................................ 12
`
`Logan v. MGM Grand Detroit Casino,
`939 F.3d 824 (6th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................. 16, 20
`
`Loksen v. Columbia Univ.,
` 2013 WL 5549780 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2013) ........................................................... 19
`
`Luna v. Household Finance Corp. III,
`236 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (W.D. Wash. 2002) ............................................................... 24
`
`Mabry v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co.
`2005 WL 1167002 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 19, 2005) ........................................................... 18
`
`Mazurkiewicz v. Clayton Homes, Inc.
`971 F.Supp.2d 682 (S.D. Tex.2013) ........................................................................ 18
`
`McKee v. AT & T Corp.,
`164 Wash. 2d 372, 191 P.3d 845 (2008) ....................................................... 4, 23, 24
`
`Narayan v. The Ritz-Carolton Development Co., Inc.,
`140 Hawai’i 343 (2017) ............................................................................................ 24
`
`O'Phelan v. Fed. Express Corp.
`2005 WL 2387647 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2005) ............................................................ 18
`
`Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc.,
`522 U.S. 422 (1998) ............................................................................................. 1, 19
`
`Ragone v. Atlantic Video at Manhattan Center,
`595 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 2, 18
`
`Ramos v. Superior Ct.,
`28 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (2018) ............................................................................. 23, 25
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 6 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 6 of 38
`
`Rupert v. PPG Industries, Inc.,
`2009 WL 596014 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2009) ............................................................. 20
`
`Rusis v. International Business Machines Corp.,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2021 WL 116469 (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2021) ........................... 3, 9
`
`Rusis v. International Business Machines Corp.,
`Civ. Act. No. 1:18-cv-08434 (S.D.N.Y.) ............................................................ 3, 6, 14
`
`Salisbury v. Art Van Furniture
`938 F. Supp. 435 (W.D. Mich. 1996) ........................................................................ 18
`
`Sanford v. Quicken Loans
`2014 WL 266410 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2014) ........................................................... 18
`
`Schnuerle v. Insight Commc’ns Co., L.P.,
`376 S.W.3d 561 (Ky. 2012) ...................................................................................... 23
`
`Smithson v. Hamlin Pub, Inc.,
`2016 WL 465564 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 8, 2016) ............................................................. 17
`
`Snell v. Suffolk County
`782 F.2d 1094 (2d Cir. 1986) ................................................................................... 12
`
`Spell v. United Parcel Service,
`WL 2012 4447385 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ......................................................................... 29
`
`Sprague v. Houseld Intern.,
`473 F. Supp. 2d 966 (W.D. Mo. 2005) ..................................................................... 24
`
`Syverson v. International Business Machines Corp.,
`472 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................. 20
`
`Thiele v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
`59 F. Supp. 3d 1060 (S.D. Cal. 1999) ...................................................................... 21
`
`Thomforde v. International Business Machines Corp.,
`406 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... 20
`
`Thompson v. Fresh Products, LLC,
`985 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2021) ........................................................................ 16, 17, 20
`
`Thompson v. Fresh Products, LLC,
`EEOC Brief, 2020 WL 1160190 (2d Cir. March 2, 2020) ......................... 4, 16, 17, 19
`
`Tolliver v. Xerox Corp.
`918 F.2d 1052 (2d Cir. 1990) ............................................................................ passim
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 7 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 7 of 38
`
`Travers v. FSS,
`737 F.3d 144 (1st Cir. 2013) .................................................................................... 27
`
`Viola v. Philips Med. Sys. of N. Am.,
`42 F.3d 712 (2d Cir. 1994) ....................................................................................... 10
`
`Whalen v. W.R. Grace & Co.
`56 F.3d 504 (3d Cir. 1995) ....................................................................................... 13
`
`Wineman v. Durkee Lakes Hunting & Fishing Club, Inc.
`352 F. Supp. 2d 815 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 13, 2005) ...................................................... 18
`
`Zuver v. Airtouch Communications, Inc.,
`153 Wash. 2d 293 (2004) .......................................................................... 2, 5, 22, 24
`
`Statutes
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1625.22(b)(3) ............................................................................................. 20
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1625.22(f) ................................................................................................... 19
`
`29 U.S.C. § 626(d) ........................................................................................................ 12
`
`29 U.S.C. § 633(b) ........................................................................................................ 12
`
`42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) ............................................................................................. 12
`
`Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”),
`29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq ...................................................................................... passim
`
`Older Workers’ Benefits Protections Act (“OWBPA”),
`29 U.S.C. § 626(f) .......................................................................................... 1, 19, 20
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Peter Gosselin and Ariana Tobin,
`Cutting ‘Old Heads’ at IBM, ProPublica (March 22, 2018),
`https://features.propublica.org/ibm/ibm-age-discrimination-american-workers/ ......... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 8 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 8 of 38
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act,
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, that two provisions of an arbitration agreement they entered into
`
`with IBM are not enforceable, as they undermine or extinguish their ability to pursue
`
`their claims against IBM under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29
`
`U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
`
`As described in Plaintiffs’ accompanying statement of material facts, upon their
`
`separation of employment, Plaintiffs all entered into an arbitration agreement with IBM
`
`that released (in exchange for a small severance payment) almost all claims they may
`
`have against IBM, but not claims under the ADEA. Under this agreement, these
`
`employees were permitted to pursue claims against IBM under the ADEA, but they had
`
`to be brought in individual arbitration proceedings.
`
`However, as set forth below, two provisions of IBM’s arbitration agreement
`
`prevent these Plaintiffs from pursuing their ADEA claims in arbitration, claims that they
`
`would have been able to pursue in court (had they not signed arbitration agreements).
`
`As the Supreme Court recognized in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S.
`
`20, 28 (1991), statutory claims “are appropriate for arbitration” only “[s]o long as the
`
`prospectively litigant effectively may vindicate [his or her] statutory cause of action in the
`
`arbitral forum . . . .” (internal quotation omitted). Here, given that IBM did not provide
`
`disclosures to the employees regarding the ages of the employees terminated in mass
`
`layoffs and those not terminated, IBM could not obtain a release of their claims under
`
`the ADEA.1 The arbitration agreement may not serve as a substitute release. The
`
`agreement is thus only enforceable insofar as these employees are able to pursue their
`
`claims in arbitration, just as they would be able to pursue them in court.
`
`
`
`
`1
`Such disclosures are required under the Older Workers’ Benefits Protections Act
`(“OWBPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 626(f) in order for an employer to obtain releases under the
`ADEA when employees are terminated as part of a group layoff. See Oubre v. Entergy
`Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422, 427 (1998)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 9 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 9 of 38
`
`Plaintiffs have not challenged the overall enforceability of IBM’s arbitration
`
`agreement. They recognize that their ADEA claims are to be pursued in arbitration.
`
`However, in arbitration, they cannot be prevented from pursuing claims they would have
`
`otherwise been able to pursue in court. This Court has the power and duty to hold
`
`unenforceable those provisions of IBM’s arbitration agreement that block or undermine
`
`Plaintiffs’ ability to pursue their ADEA claims (that have not been released) in
`
`arbitration.2
`
`Indeed, courts have regularly ordered cases to arbitration, but first excising
`
`provisions of arbitration agreements they have found to be unenforceable. See, e.g.,
`
`Ragone v. Atlantic Video at Manhattan Center, 595 F.3d 115, 125-26 (2d Cir. 2010)
`
`(“[T]he appropriate remedy when a court is faced with a plainly unconscionable
`
`provision of an arbitration agreement—one which by itself would actually preclude a
`
`plaintiff from pursuing her statutory rights—is to sever the improper provision of the
`
`arbitration agreement, rather than void the entire agreement.”) (citation omitted); Larsen
`
`v. Citibank FSB, 871 F.3d 1295, 1319 (11th Cir. 2017) (severing confidentiality provision
`
`within an arbitration agreement); Zuver v. Airtouch Communications, Inc., 153 Wash. 2d
`
`293, 312-21 (2004) (severing unconscionable confidentiality provision and provision
`
`precluding punitive damages from arbitration agreement).3
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
` See Exemplar Arbitration Agreement, at p. 25,
`Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Shannon Liss-Riordan.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Plaintiffs’ Statement of Material Facts (hereinafter “SOF”) ¶ 15 n.10.)
`
` 3
`
`This case is somewhat unusual in that, here, Plaintiffs have not contested the
`
`overall enforceability of IBM’s arbitration agreement. Typically, courts have excised
`unenforceable provisions in arbitration agreements after considering plaintiffs’
`arguments that the arbitration agreement is itself not enforceable, as explained above.
`The courts have then compelled arbitration, with those provisions ruled unenforceable.
`Here, however, Plaintiffs should not be penalized for not contesting the overall
`enforceability of the arbitration agreement itself. The Court still has the power to excise
`unenforceable provisions, as IBM has argued to various arbitrators (who have agreed
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 10 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 10 of 38
`
`The first provision that Plaintiffs challenge is a timing provision, which purports to
`
`waive the “piggybacking” rule that would excuse Plaintiffs from filing administrative
`
`charges of discrimination when a similar charge has already been filed with the EEOC,
`
`alleging classwide discrimination (or similar enough allegations of discrimination) that
`
`would encompass the plaintiff’s own claim of discrimination. Under this rule, plaintiffs
`
`may file claims of discrimination years after they suffered discrimination by
`
`“piggybacking” onto earlier-filed claims, which put the company on notice of allegations
`
`that it engaged in illegal discrimination that affected a broad class of workers. See
`
`Tolliver v. Xerox Corp., 918 F.2d 1052, 1057-59 (2d Cir. 1990); Holowecki v. Federal
`
`Exp. Corp., 440 F.3d 558, 565-70 (2d Cir. 2006). This rule thus effectively extends the
`
`statute of limitations for plaintiffs bringing discrimination claims, where earlier classwide
`
`charges of discrimination have been filed against the company. While Plaintiffs would
`
`have all been able to “piggyback” onto an earlier-filed class action age discrimination
`
`case against IBM (without any concern regarding timeliness of their claims),4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with the argument) that only a court could address Plaintiffs’ claims that these
`provisions are unenforceable.
`
` 4
`
`See SOF ¶ 14. As explained there, these Plaintiffs would have been able to opt
`
`in to a class and collective action that Plaintiffs’ counsel have against IBM. See Rusis v.
`International Business Machines Corp., Civ. Act. No. 1:18-cv-08434 (S.D.N.Y.).
`Plaintiffs (with the exception of Brian Flannery and Deborah Kamienski) opted in to
`Rusis in order to challenge the provision of IBM’s arbitration agreement that purports to
`waive the “piggybacking” rule. The court there held that Plaintiffs could not participate
`in a class or collective action, due to the class waiver in IBM’s arbitration agreement,
`and ordered that any such challenge would have to be filed individually. See Rusis v.
`International Business Machines Corp., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2021 WL 116469, at *4-7
`(S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2021). Plaintiffs thereafter filed these cases individually, which this
`Court consolidated (In re: IBM Arbitration Agreement Litig., Dkt. 20). (Plaintiff
`Flannery’s and Kamienski’s Complaints inadvertently state incorrectly that they opted in
`to Rusis.)
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 11 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 11 of 38
`
`5 Plaintiffs here contend that, as “piggybacking” is an ADEA
`
`statute of limitations doctrine -- and the ADEA statute of limitations is a substantive right
`
`– IBM’s arbitration agreement cannot be used to have waived this right for Plaintiffs.6
`
`The second provision that Plaintiffs challenge is a confidentiality provision in
`
`IBM’s arbitration agreement, which IBM has aggressively wielded in order to block
`
`employees pursuing discrimination cases against IBM in arbitration from using evidence
`
`in support of their claims that Plaintiffs’ counsel have obtained in other arbitration cases
`
`raising the same issues. A number of courts have recognized the importance to
`
`employees pursuing discrimination claims, particularly in “pattern and practice” cases, of
`
`being able to build off of evidence obtained by other employees with similar claims.7
`
`And courts have recognized that confidentiality provisions in arbitration agreements can
`
`give unfair advantage to corporate defendants, preventing plaintiffs from sharing
`
`information obtained in their separate cases. Thus, a number of courts have held such
`
`confidentiality provisions to be unenforceable. See, e.g., Larsen, 871 F.3d at 1319
`
`(holding that a confidentiality provision in an arbitration agreement was unconscionable,
`
`because it provided the defendant with an obvious informational advantage); McKee v.
`
`AT & T Corp., 164 Wash. 2d 372, 398, 191 P.3d 845, 858 (2008), abrogated on other
`
`grounds by AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (finding
`
`confidentiality clause unenforceable because it advantaged repeat players and
`
`hampered claimants’ ability to demonstrate patterns of unlawful or abusive conduct);
`
`
`5
`Plaintiffs Gianiny and Leigh even filed their own timely EEOC charges, but
`because of the IBM arbitration agreement’s timing provision, IBM persuaded arbitrators
`that their arbitration claims were not timely. (SOF ¶ 7 n.4.)
`
` 6
`
`As discussed below, the EEOC has taken the position that the ADEA limitations
`
`period is a substantive, non-waivable right. See Thompson v. Fresh Products, LLC,
`EEOC Brief, 2020 WL 1160190, at *19-23 (6th Cir. March 2, 2020).
`
` 7
`
`Even in individual discrimination cases, pattern and practice evidence is widely
`
`recognized as an important tool for plaintiffs to prove discriminatory intent by employers.
`See Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co., 895 F.2d 80, 84-85 (2d Cir. 1990).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 12 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 12 of 38
`
`Zuver, 153 Wash. 2d at 312-15 (striking unconscionable confidentiality provision in
`
`employment discrimination case because it prevented the plaintiff from demonstrating a
`
`pattern or practice of unlawful behavior and from benefiting from previous arbitral
`
`decisions).
`
`As discussed below, and demonstrated through Plaintiffs’ accompanying
`
`statement of facts, a number of former employees have pursued ADEA claims against
`
`IBM in arbitration and have amassed a great deal of highly relevant,
`
` evidence,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`However, IBM has wielded its confidentiality provision in its arbitration agreement
`
`aggressively to block these employees at every turn from using this highly relevant and
`
`damning evidence in each other’s cases. Plaintiffs have set forth in their statement of
`
`facts numerous examples of the types of evidence their counsel have obtained in
`
`various arbitration cases against IBM,
`
`
`
`
`
` These examples illustrate how IBM is using the confidentiality provision
`
`in its arbitration agreement to – not just require these employees to pursue their claims
`
`individually in arbitration – but to severely undermine their ability to build and prove their
`
`case in arbitration. As the Second Circuit has explained, “[b]ecause employers rarely
`
`leave a paper trail – or ‘smoking gun’ – attesting to a discriminatory intent, disparate
`
`treatment plaintiffs must often build their cases from pieces of circumstantial evidence,”
`
`which includes “[e]vidence relating to company-wide practices.” See Hollander, 895
`
`F.2d at 84-85. Since IBM has used the confidentiality provision in its arbitration
`
`agreement to prevent employees from building their cases in arbitration as they would
`
`be allowed to in court – by building them from accumulation of circumstantial evidence
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 13 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 13 of 38
`
`and evidence of companywide practices obtained by other employees -- this Court
`
`should also enter an order holding the confidentiality provision in IBM’s arbitration
`
`agreement to be unenforceable.8
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. Overview
`
`In these consolidated lawsuits, Plaintiffs allege that they lost their jobs as the
`
`result of IBM’s discriminatory efforts to systematically reduce its employment of older
`
`workers in order to build a younger workforce, pushing out thousands of older workers
`
`while hiring younger workers (which IBM often refers to as “Early Professional Hires” or
`
`“New Collar” workers), in order to better compete with newer technology companies,
`
`such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, and others. (SOF ¶ 3.)9 This discriminatory
`
`scheme is detailed in the Second Amended Complaint in Rusis, Civ. Act. No. 18-cv-
`
`08434 (Dkt. 179) (attached as Exhibit 1 to the Liss-Riordan Declaration).
`
`Although IBM has sought – both through its arbitration process and in the Rusis
`
`case - to cabin each employee separation as if it existed in a vacuum, the EEOC issued
`
`a letter of determination on August 31, 2020, that found otherwise. (SOF ¶¶ 49-55.)
`
`Following a two year investigation of allegations of classwide discrimination against
`
`IBM, the EEOC found that reasonable cause exists to believe that IBM has been
`
`engaged in an aggressive campaign over a five-year period to reduce the number of its
`
`
`8
`At the very least, Plaintiffs request that the Court order that the confidentiality
`provision may not be used to stop employees from using information gained in other
`arbitration cases in their own cases. The question of whether the confidentiality
`provision can stop the information from becoming publicly available is a separate matter
`that the Court need not specifically address here.
`
` 9
`
`Indeed, in an article published by ProPublica following an investigation of IBM‟s
`
`hiring practices, ProPublica reported that it estimates that “in the past five years alone,
`IBM has eliminated more than 20,000 American employees ages 40 and over, about 60
`percent of its estimated total U.S. job cuts during those years.” Peter Gosselin and
`Ariana Tobin, Cutting ‘Old Heads’ at IBM, ProPublica (March 22, 2018),
`https://features.propublica.org/ibm/ibm-age-discrimination-american-workers/.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 14 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 14 of 38
`
`older workers and replace them with younger workers, thereby discriminating against its
`
`older workers in violation of the ADEA. (SOF ¶¶ 49-55.) The EEOC’s determination
`
`pertained to fifty-eight (58) charging parties “and a class of similarly situated parties”
`
`who alleged that they were discharged based on their age and was based on data from
`
`IBM terminations between 2013 and 2018. (SOF ¶¶ 49-55.)
`
`B. The Rusis Named Plaintiffs’ EEOC Charges
`
`
`
`As a predicate to filing the Rusis lawsuit, lead plaintiff Edvin Rusis filed a class
`
`EEOC charge on May 10, 2018, which states:
`
`IBM is discriminating against its older workers, both by laying them off
`disproportionately to younger workers and not hiring them for open positions.
`Indeed, over the last several years, IBM has been in the process of
`systematically laying off its older employees in order to build a younger
`workforce. IBM has laid off at least 20,000 employees over the age of forty in the
`last five years. I am 59 years old, and I am being laid off by IBM effective June
`27, 2018. Since receiving notice of my layoff, I have applied for several other
`open positions within IBM, for which I am eminently qualified, but I have not been
`hired for any of these positions, despite my lengthy service and successful
`experience as an employee for IBM. I believe that I and thousands of other
`employees have been discriminated against by IBM on the basis of age.
`
`(SOF ¶ 14 n.9.) Other Rusis plaintiffs (Henry Gerrits and Phil McGonegal) subsequently
`
`filed class charges with similar language on July 2, 2018 (SOF ¶ 14 n.9.)
`
`Additionally, on July 22, 2021, the Rusis plaintiffs submitted a second amended
`
`complaint, adding Sally Gehring (and various others) as a named plaintiff. (SOF ¶ 14
`
`n.9.) Ms. Gehring was a charging party in the EEOC’s Letter of Determination, and she
`
`had filed a classwide EEOC charge back on November 14, 2016. (SOF ¶¶ 14 n.9, 51.)
`
`Ms. Gehring’s charge states:
`
` I
`
` was forced to train a new employee who was outside my protected statuses. I
`was subjected to a hostile work environment when training others to do my job
`duties. Particularly, I trained workers who were male, under age of 40, non
`American national origin and a different race to do my duties. After which, I was
`terminated and my job duties were taken over by workers outside all of my
`protected statuses. Many employees in my protected statuses have been
`terminated and are not being hired.
`
`(SOF ¶ 14 n.9.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 27 Filed 10/08/21 Page 15 of 38Case 1:21-cv-06296-JMF Document 38 Filed 10/27/21 Page 15 of 38
`
`C. The Timeliness Dispute in Plaintiffs’ Arbitrations
`
`
`
`When they were terminated, Plaintiffs in this case all signed materially identical
`
`arbitration agreements in exchange for modest severance payments. (SOF ¶¶ 4-5.) The
`
`Plaintiffs did not receive OWBPA disclosures from IBM in connection with signing their
`
`arbitration agreements. (SOF ¶ 7 n.3.)
`
`With respect to the time limit for filing an arbitration demand, the arbitration
`
`agreement states:
`
`To initiate arbitration, you must submit a written demand for arbitration to the IBM
`Arbitration Coordinator no later than the expiration