October 8, 2025
BOSTON – Judge Angel Kelley on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of an IBM worker who was let go because of his age along with about 20,000 other workers as part of discriminatory mass layoffs. Judge Kelley held that his age discrimination claim is timely even though it was not filed by a contractual deadline imposed by IBM. The judge also found that the statute of limitations in the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is a “substantive” right that cannot be shortened by contract.
Michael Rumsey was laid off by IBM in 2016 as part of what the EEOC later found to be a years-long systematic “top-down” scheme devised by IBM’s “highest ranks” to replace older workers with younger workers in violation of the ADEA. As described in court filings made public in February 2022, internal IBM emails showed its top leaders discussing the “need to hire early professionals” to keep up with competitors with a larger share of younger employees and to make “the progress we need to make demographically.” In these same emails, its chief executive and other senior officials planned for making about 20,000 or more of their older employees an “extinct species,” while denigrating them as “dinobabies” and a “dated maternal workforce.”
When Mr. Rumsey and other IBM workers tried to join to enforce their rights by filing a collective age discrimination lawsuit, IBM forced them into individual arbitration based on separation agreements they signed when they were laid off. Hundreds of workers then filed their claims in arbitration, but IBM argued that their claims were barred by a vague provision in its separation agreement, which IBM interpreted to mean that the workers were required to file their claims within 300 days of the layoff, rather than the more than four years they would have had to file their claims under the ADEA.
Mr. Rumsey then filed a declaratory judgement action in federal court in Boston, asking the court to rule that his claims (and therefore the claims of the other IBM workers) were not time barred by IBM’s severance agreement. He argued that the contract could not waive the ADEA’s statute of limitations, which provides that a worker must sue within 90 days of receiving a notice from the EEOC that its investigation and conciliation efforts have ended and the worker is entitled to sue. If the deadline could be shortened so dramatically, that would mean that workers would have to file their claims in arbitration at the same time they would normally start the administrative process for age discrimination claims at the EEOC, preventing them from benefiting from that process — including the investigation that uncovered systematic age discrimination in Mr. Rumsey’s case — before filing suit.
This is one of the first courts to rule on whether the ADEA’s statute of limitations can be shortened by an employer. Judge Kelley emphasized that the result was compelled by precedent of the federal court of appeals in Boston: “The First Circuit’s guidance is clear: an arbitration agreement cannot shorten a statute’s limitations period when legislative intent is to the contrary.” And Judge Kelley found that Congress had intentionally structured the statute of limitations in the ADEA to require workers to file suit only after the EEOC had fully investigated their claims and sent them a notice saying they could sue, a structure that would be entirely undermined by requiring workers to sue within 300 days, which is long before the EEOC usually completes its investigations.
This decision means that Mr. Rumsey and other workers who have been fighting IBM’s discrimination for nearly a decade may finally get to have the merits of their claims heard.
“This is a win for workers,” said Shelby Leighton of Public Justice, one of the attorneys who represents Mr. Rumsey. “This decision affirms that companies like IBM cannot use opaque fine print in contracts to deny workers their day in court.”
“IBM’s top executives covered up their underhanded scheme to fire thousands of workers because of their age and keep them from suing over it,” said David Webbert, the lead counsel for Mr. Rumsey who successfully argued the case to the Court. “It is long overdue for IBM to be held accountable and for Mr. Rumsey and others like him to get the justice they deserve.”
The plaintiff is represented by Public Justice; Johnson & Webbert, LLP; Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll; Gibbs Mura; and Solidarity Law.
###
Public Justice takes on the biggest systemic threats to justice of our time—abusive corporate power and predatory practices, the assault on civil rights and liberties, and the destruction of the earth’s sustainability. We connect high-impact litigation with strategic communications and the strength of our partnerships to fight these abusive and discriminatory systems and win social and economic justice.
Johnson & Webbert, LLP, is the largest workers’ and civil rights law firm in Northern New England and prosecutes human rights cases nationwide including employment discrimination and wage theft class actions.
Cohen Milstein is one of the largest and most diversified plaintiff-side litigation firms in the country—with over 100 attorneys in offices nationwide.
Gibbs Mura is a California-based law firm committed to protecting the rights of clients nationwide who have been harmed by corporate misconduct. It represent individuals, whistleblowers, employees, and small businesses across the U.S. against the world’s largest corporations.
Solidarity Law represents employees and unions in employment disputes, concentrating on discrimination and wage theft cases.