A "Resource Action," an automated rejection, and a familiar name in age-bias litigation
A 24-year IBM veteran says the tech giant pushed him out at 48, then let an algorithm slam the door on his way back in.
That, in essence, is the story Daniel Swanson tells in a lawsuit filed May 23, 2026 in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas (Swanson v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 1:26-cv-01382). Swanson, a former Software Development Manager based in Austin, claims IBM terminated him on September 17, 2024 as part of what the company labeled a "Resource Action," and that the move was the latest chapter in a long-running effort to clear out older workers in favor of younger hires the company calls "Early Professional Hires," or EPHs.
For HR leaders, the most arresting piece of the filing is what Swanson says happened next. After his termination, he applied on February 20, 2025 for an open Software Product Manager role in Austin — essentially, he says, the same kind of work he had been doing successfully for years. Two days later, he received an automatic rejection that, according to the filing, "appeared to be generated by artificial intelligence screening software." Swanson alleges IBM's "ageist scheme had been programed into its HR screening software," effectively blacklisting him from rehire.
The filing paints a broader picture of how HR decisions are allegedly made at the company. It claims that executives, several rungs above any first-line manager, placed employees on "secret internal RA lists" long before those managers knew their reports had been marked for layoff. First-line managers, the filing says, were then used as "cat's paws" to make the terminations look like local calls. Performance reviews, Swanson alleges, were sometimes shaped to fit the outcome, with managers told to set "impossible-to-meet performance goals for older workers."
Swanson also points to the language he says runs through IBM's planning decks — "seniority mix," "skills remix," "next generation," "refresh," "revitalization hiring," "reinvention of the workforce," and "runway" — terms the complaint characterizes as coded references to age.
The suit leans on familiar ground. It cites a September 2020 EEOC determination finding "reasonable cause to believe" older employees were discriminated against, and references New York Times reporting that, according to the filing, IBM executives discussed older workers as "dino babies" who should be made an "extinct species."
Swanson, by his own account, was a steady performer. The filing says he received multiple promotions, raises, bonuses, equity awards, and consistently high reviews across more than two decades, and was never placed on a Performance Improvement Plan. He claims his first-level manager told him in person that the termination "was not based on either his performance or because his job was being eliminated." His duties, the filing says, were split between two remaining employees, one of them younger than him, while three other colleagues in his group — each with more than 25 years of service — were let go at the same time.
Swanson is seeking back pay, liquidated damages, reinstatement or front pay, and a jury trial under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act.
The allegations have not been tested in court. IBM has not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled on the claims.
