Mrs. Wittenburg's evidences and AEFA’s responds regarding the effect of the RIF on older workers are: (p. 694-695, Wittenburg v. American Express)
• Mrs. Wittenburg claimed that th AEFA fired eight oldest analysts by the end of the two-year-makeover plan and gave low G4 or LA ratings to four of five oldest analysts. As a result, they were fired by 2003 during the RIF. Nonetheless, ACEA could demonstrate that many of the employees of the protected class survived the RIF. They also showed that out of 31 affected employees by the RIF, 17 were 40 years old or older, where 6 of them were terminated, 4 resigned, and 7 survived the cut of personnel. AEFA alleged that the other two analysts, 46 and 41 years old respectively, were ranked first and second in the 2002 analysts rankings. Furthermore, they presented as evidence that Mr. Hollenshorst, who was 51 years old, was not terminated during the RIF performed in 2003.
• …show more content…
Wittenburg argued that Mr. Mahowald ranked her as "maybe drop" during the RIF realized in 2002, but he ranked younger employees with lower scores in the "keep: category. However, AEFA showed that Mrs. Wittenburg survived the first round of the RIF.
• Mrs. Wittenburg claimed that the reason for the company to cut costs and the need for the RIF was just a pretext. Mr. Truscott maintained his position at all times that the reason why the RFI was implemented was to redesign the
• Mrs. Wittenburg claimed that th AEFA fired eight oldest analysts by the end of the two-year-makeover plan and gave low G4 or LA ratings to four of five oldest analysts. As a result, they were fired by 2003 during the RIF. Nonetheless, ACEA could demonstrate that many of the employees of the protected class survived the RIF. They also showed that out of 31 affected employees by the RIF, 17 were 40 years old or older, where 6 of them were terminated, 4 resigned, and 7 survived the cut of personnel. AEFA alleged that the other two analysts, 46 and 41 years old respectively, were ranked first and second in the 2002 analysts rankings. Furthermore, they presented as evidence that Mr. Hollenshorst, who was 51 years old, was not terminated during the RIF performed in 2003.
• …show more content…
Wittenburg argued that Mr. Mahowald ranked her as "maybe drop" during the RIF realized in 2002, but he ranked younger employees with lower scores in the "keep: category. However, AEFA showed that Mrs. Wittenburg survived the first round of the RIF.
• Mrs. Wittenburg claimed that the reason for the company to cut costs and the need for the RIF was just a pretext. Mr. Truscott maintained his position at all times that the reason why the RFI was implemented was to redesign the