Tuesday, December 22, 2015

The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act Holds Traps for Employers Using Severance Agreements, Including Large Corporations

Employers use severance agreements hopefully to secure a clean parting of ways with employees who are let go.  Paying a severance in exchange for a waiver and release of potential legal claims, can be a way to avoid costly litigation.  However, any waiver/release that is not drafted properly can allow employees to take the severance package yet still sue the company!  Nowhere are these concerns more acute than with severance agreements involving employees who are over the age of 40. This is because in order to effectively waive age discrimination claims available to workers 40 and older, a severance agreement must comply with nuanced requirements of the federal Older Workers Benefits Protection Act (OWBPA).  As a federal court case now pending in Minnesota illustrates, complying with the OWBPA can be easier said than done.

The case is a class action lawsuit brought against corporate giant, General Mills.  The plaintiffs were among approximately 850 employees who were terminated as part of a corporate restructuring dubbed by the company as “Project Refuel.”  The plaintiffs, all 40 and older and thus covered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, are alleging that the releases they signed as part of their severance agreements, were not “knowing and voluntary,” as required by the OWBPA.  Adding insult to injury, OWBPA regulations do not require a person claiming that a waiver and release was not knowing and voluntary, to pay back the severance or other consideration given in exchange for agreeing not to sue.  As a result, the plaintiffs in this case are keeping the relatively generous severance they received in exchange for signing their severance agreements, while suing to get out of their promises not to sue!

It is important to note that no determination has yet been made regarding whether General Mills’ severance agreements did or did not comply with OWBPA.  The company had tried to argue that its agreements included an arbitration clause and, therefore, the lawsuit should be stayed by the court to allow for arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims.  However, the federal district court denied this request, citing explicit language from the statute which states that disputes over compliance with the OWBPA must be heard in a “court of competent jurisdiction.” Further, the court refused to stay the plaintiffs’ lawsuit while General Mills is appealing its ruling regarding arbitration to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

General Mills may wind up prevailing against these plaintiffs’ attempt to use the OWBPA to get out of the waiver and release agreements they signed; however, it does not change the fact that these individuals are keeping the severances they were offered in exchange for not suing, while still suing the company.  Obviously if the agreements are determined to fail to meet the stringent requirements of the OWBPA – that is, if the court finds that the language is insufficient to make the agreements “knowing and voluntary” – the company will be defending against a class action age discrimination case by hundreds of employees laid off in a sizeable reduction in force, or RIF. 

Attorneys everywhere will no doubt be watching this case since its outcome will have a significant impact on how severance agreements will be drafted for anyone 40 or older.  In the meantime great care should be taken to avoid similar challenges afforded to employees by the complicated and very nuanced, OWBPA.


Questions? Contact the attorneys of our Minneapolis office at (952) 746-1700 or email Christine Beggan at chbeggan@wesselssherman.com for more information.