Lonn Jørgen (Jorgen Lohnn)

Lonn Jørgen (Jorgen Lohnn)

2022: Killed himself after being fired

On August 15, 2022, IBM settled an age discrimination case brought by the widow of a sales executive who killed himself after being fired from an IT company.

The lawsuit, filed in July 2021, reports that Yorgen Lonn worked at IBM for about 15 years until he was fired in 2016 at the age of 57. Lonn served at IBM as a sales and distribution manager. The plaintiff is now his wife, Denise Lonn, who claims that Lonn was the victim of a long-term discriminatory company-wide scheme implemented by senior management to rejuvenate staff by reducing age workers and replacing them with younger specialists.

The lawsuit cites an August 31, 2020, letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) noting that as a result of a years-long investigation, the EEOC found IBM descending from senior ranks, instructing managers to take an aggressive approach to significantly reduce the number of older workers to make room for young professionals. The lawsuit also reports that top managers in internal correspondence called employees over 40 years old - dinosaurs. The dismissal campaign at IBM began back in 2014, and in total from 50 to 100 thousand people were fired.

In 2019, IBM entered into an agreement with 281 of 285 people in the UK who filed age discrimination claims. Another 26 people in the United States, who claimed that the company discriminated against them because of age, were prevented from participating in the current class action lawsuit against IBM in June 2020 because they had previously signed an arbitration agreement with Big Blue.

In August 2022, in the case of Jörgen Lohn, IBM agreed to end their legal fight, Judge Leeman issued an opinion and an order stating whether the declarations and material evidence filed during the trial will remain classified as secret, or whether they will be available with limited changes. Because the court will not rule on the already settled dispute between the two parties, the judge argues that there is little benefit in providing these documents because they will not help the public evaluate the court's functions under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.^[1]

Notes