Workers suing General Mills Inc. for age discrimination won a round in federal court when a judge rejected the company's attempt to dismiss the suit and compel individual arbitration.
The suit, filed earlier this year in Minneapolis, stems from a General Mills corporate restructuring in 2012 that led to about 850 mostly white-collar layoffs.
The suit's 33 plaintiffs, all aged 40 and above, claim they were improperly terminated in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The layoffs affected older employees at much higher rates than younger employees, they claim.
Golden Valley-based General Mills says the plaintiffs signed severance agreements that waved legal claims under the age discrimination act. Also, the agreements called for any disputes to be settled through individual arbitration.
However, the plaintiffs argued that the employees' release agreements were not signed "knowingly and willingly," and therefore unenforceable.
Whether a waiver release is signed ''knowingly and willingly" is a matter to be determined in court, as spelled out in another federal law, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act [OWBPA], according to a ruling Friday by U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim.
The law "clearly mandates that a dispute over the validity of a waiver of substantive claims or rights under the OWBPA, like in this case, shall be heard in court, not an arbitral forum," Tunheim wrote.
General Mills plans to appeal Tunheim's ruling. "The judge's decision was narrowly focused on whether these claims should be heard in court or in arbitration," General Mills said in an e-mail to the Star Tribune. "We continue to believe these claims should be resolved in arbitration."