Years of good reviews, then one bad one - a lawsuit says age was the real reason
A former General Motors professional says the automaker fired him over his age and a discrimination complaint, a new lawsuit alleges.
The complaint, filed July 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, sets out a sequence HR leaders will recognize: a strong, decades-long record, a restructure, and then a sharp reversal.
The worker, 57, joined GM in 2012. His performance reviews were satisfactory every year from 2012 through 2024, the filing says, and over his career he delivered efficiencies and savings the complaint describes as "exceeding $100 million."
Then came a 2023 marketing shake-up. According to the complaint, GM built a parallel marketing structure staffed with younger employees and steadily moved the worker's core duties - overseeing GM's outside creative advertising agencies - into it. Two younger peers doing similar work kept their duties, the filing says.
When two management roles opened, the worker alleges he was denied the chance to apply. He later heard from his manager, the complaint says, that a senior HR business partner had called it "disingenuous" to let him interview, despite his experience and qualifications.
The age theme allegedly surfaced again in early 2025, when a newly installed director told him, according to the filing: "We need new thinking and not techniques employed by the old regime."
In mid-2025, the worker says, he received his first and only less-than-satisfactory review, from a younger manager who had taken over his reporting line. Three younger colleagues under that manager received positive reviews, the complaint states.
On October 9, 2025, he filed a formal internal complaint alleging age discrimination and retaliation. At that point, the filing says, he was the second-oldest person in a 51-person organization where 92% of his colleagues were under 50 and every manager was in their 30s or 40s.
An employee relations investigator met with him. In a January 22, 2026 email quoted in the complaint, the investigator wrote that the inquiry had concluded and that GM had "addressed the matter consistent with its policies and practices," while reiterating the company's non-retaliation policy.
On February 2, 2026, GM terminated him, citing the poor review. The complaint alleges the real reasons were his age and his discrimination complaint.
He also says GM did not provide access to his personnel file after a March 11, 2026 request, which he claims violates Michigan's Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act - a state law giving workers the right to review their own records.
His claims fall under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. He filed a charge with the EEOC and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights on March 27, 2026.
The takeaway for HR is less about GM than about the shape of the claim. A long, satisfactory record; a reorganization that moves work to younger staff; exclusion from roles the worker says he was qualified for; and then, after a formal age-discrimination complaint, a termination the company attributed to a performance review. A protected complaint followed months later by dismissal is the core of a retaliation theory. And the claim that an HR partner called it "disingenuous" to let an experienced older worker interview is a reminder that remarks made during restructuring can resurface as evidence.
The allegations have not been tested in court, and no judge has ruled.
