Caelcamino71
New Member
My jurisdiction is: San Bernardino County, California
My wife went to work for her current employer in 1975 at age 20. In 1989, it was explained to all of the employees that they could take early retirement at age 59 1/2 if they had served with the company for at least 30 years. Under that plan, her medical insurance would be maintained from the time of her retirement until she reached 65.
A few weeks ago, a memo was sent out to the employees stating that the policy had been changed. There were quite a few complaints about the changes, and another memo went out several days later which made matters even worse. To get to the nut of the matter, it is not all that long before her long-planned retirement in 2015 at age 59 1/2. That has now been thrown totally off track by the new policy which now states that an employee must have at least 30 years of service and reach the age of 59 1/2 by December 31, 2013!
With this new policy, it seems like my wife is being discriminated against because she was hired at age 20 and has the "misfortune" of workng there solidly since that time, all the while receiving rave reviews for her work with not one single problem ever reported. Meanwhile, those who have served fewer years than her who came to the company at a later age will receive the benefit promised to my wife back in 1989.
On her previously planned retirement date (2015), my wife will have faithfully served this organization for 40 years. Now she is being forced to work for this company for two additional years until age 62 to get that benefit, keeping in mind that those who will have served for 12 fewer years can get it much, much sooner.
So, my question is, does this fall under some kind of age discrimination law or, even at this late date, can her employer simply do as it pleases? It seems to us that she is getting the shaft solely because she was hired at the age of 20 while those hired at an older age, even in the same year that my wife was hired, are getting a pass.
My wife went to work for her current employer in 1975 at age 20. In 1989, it was explained to all of the employees that they could take early retirement at age 59 1/2 if they had served with the company for at least 30 years. Under that plan, her medical insurance would be maintained from the time of her retirement until she reached 65.
A few weeks ago, a memo was sent out to the employees stating that the policy had been changed. There were quite a few complaints about the changes, and another memo went out several days later which made matters even worse. To get to the nut of the matter, it is not all that long before her long-planned retirement in 2015 at age 59 1/2. That has now been thrown totally off track by the new policy which now states that an employee must have at least 30 years of service and reach the age of 59 1/2 by December 31, 2013!
With this new policy, it seems like my wife is being discriminated against because she was hired at age 20 and has the "misfortune" of workng there solidly since that time, all the while receiving rave reviews for her work with not one single problem ever reported. Meanwhile, those who have served fewer years than her who came to the company at a later age will receive the benefit promised to my wife back in 1989.
On her previously planned retirement date (2015), my wife will have faithfully served this organization for 40 years. Now she is being forced to work for this company for two additional years until age 62 to get that benefit, keeping in mind that those who will have served for 12 fewer years can get it much, much sooner.
So, my question is, does this fall under some kind of age discrimination law or, even at this late date, can her employer simply do as it pleases? It seems to us that she is getting the shaft solely because she was hired at the age of 20 while those hired at an older age, even in the same year that my wife was hired, are getting a pass.
