Employee sues IBM over firing one day after profit-sharing bonus

According to the lawsuit, IBM rated Gutierrez as “thriving” in a performance evaluation on February 10, 2025. On March 17, the company processed his annual profit-sharing payment — a bonus IBM’s own documentation tied to the employee’s contribution to business results. The following day, March 18, Gutierrez received a termination notice citing a “Reduction in Force” and “Talent Footprint.” 

The timing alone would raise questions. But the lawsuit goes further. 

It alleges IBM had already begun onboarding a replacement worker roughly 28 days before telling Gutierrez he was being let go. Internal Slack messages and Monday.com records cited in the filing allegedly show a colleague spending 1.5 hours training the replacement on change management duties and requesting system access for him — all while Gutierrez was still on the job and unaware. 

The suit also alleges IBM did not eliminate Gutierrez’s role so much as divide it. At least three workers were allegedly assigned to cover what he had handled, including one based in Bangalore, India, and another in Austin, Texas — the latter brought on specifically because the India-based replacement could not perform duties requiring U.S. residency. A manager within the team allegedly told a colleague he was “adding to ITSM, not reducing” on the same day the replacement’s onboarding began. 

For HR professionals, the OWBPA-related allegations may be the most operationally relevant part of the case. Gutierrez alleges IBM offered a separation agreement that routed age discrimination claims into mandatory arbitration but gave him only 30 days to consider it — instead of the 45 days required when a group termination program is involved. When he asked for the mandatory disclosures about who was selected and who was not, IBM’s workforce management office allegedly refused twice in writing, stating there was “no requirement to do so.”