Watch That Wording – Appellate Court Invalidates IBM's Standard Release
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.09.05
The Eighth Circuit has reinstated an age discrimination case filed against IBM by an engineer who was terminated as part of a reduction in force. Thomforde v. International Business Machines Corp., No. 04-1538 (8th Cir., May 3, 2005). The three-judge panel ruled that IBM violated the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act (OWBPA), which amended the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, by demanding the employee sign a waiver and release in connection with his termination. The release document included separate “covenant not to sue” provisions in addition to standard waiver and release language. Reversing the district court, the Eighth Circuit panel held that the language in the release did not clearly establish, as OWBPA requires, that the plaintiff was not relinquishing his right to bring a claim of age discrimination challenging the validity of the release. The court thus concluded that IBM violated OWBPA's requirement that a valid release of an age discrimination claim must be written “in a manner calculated to be understood by” the intended participants of the reduction in force program. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(f).
In reaching this conclusion, the court was influenced by evidence before the district court that an IBM lawyer had refused to provide the plaintiff, in response to his question, with an interpretation of the company's position as to the release. The court observed that, having decided to use “legal terms of art” in the release, IBM “had a duty to carefully explain the provisions” in the agreement. Because the release did not satisfy OWBPA's requirements, the court held that it was ineffective as a matter of law to waive the plaintiff's right to sue IBM for age discrimination.
Thomforde is a cautionary tale for employers in two respects. First, it reinforces the importance of taking a close look at waiver and release agreements. OWBPA's highly technical requirements make “covenant to sue” language inherently problematic. Second, the Eighth Circuit's opinion can be read to impose a new requirement on employers to undertake an affirmative obligation to explain the terms of a severance arrangement in which a release is requested.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.17.25
After hosting a series of workshops and issuing multiple rounds of materials, including enforcement notices, checklists, templates, and other guidance, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proposed regulations to implement the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261) (both as amended by SB 219), which require large U.S.-based businesses operating in California to disclose greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate-related risks. CARB also published a Notice of Public Hearing and an Initial Statement of Reasons along with the proposed regulations. While CARB’s final rules were statutorily required to be promulgated by July 1, 2025, these are still just proposals. CARB’s proposed rules largely track earlier guidance regarding how CARB intends to define compliance obligations, exemptions, and key deadlines, and establish fee programs to fund regulatory operations.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.17.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.17.25
Executive Order Tries to Thwart “Onerous” AI State Regulation, Calls for National Framework
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.17.25
The new EU Bioeconomy Strategy: a regulatory framework in transition
