He says he cleared his 30-day improvement plan, then lost a job of three decades
A former technology director says Thomson Reuters forced him out because of his age, ending a career that spanned three decades, according to a complaint filed in federal court in Michigan.
The former employee sued Thomson Reuters (Tax & Accounting) Inc. on July 30, 2026, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. According to the complaint, he joined the company in 1993 as a business analyst and worked his way up to director of technology, giving 31 years of service in all.
For most of that time, the filing says, his record was clean. The complaint describes "glowing performance evaluations" and no discipline "of any kind." It alleges the situation changed as younger managers arrived.
In 2021, according to the complaint, a role he applied for went to a younger, less-experienced employee. That person resigned within weeks, and the plaintiff was later given the position. He did not raise a formal complaint at the time, the filing says, but cites the episode as background for what followed.
The complaint points to 2024 as a turning point. His long-time manager retired and was replaced by someone the filing describes, on information and belief, as being in her 30s. That July, according to the complaint, the new manager issued a "Written Warning on Unsatisfactory Performance." The plaintiff alleges the warning rested on subjective concerns he considered meritless, each of which he disputed in a detailed written response.
Two months later, the filing says, he was placed on a 30-day performance improvement plan, or PIP - the standard tool HR teams use to document and address underperformance. The plaintiff says he succeeded on each of the plan's metrics. He also alleges that in regular meetings with his superior during the plan, no significant deficiency was identified and he was not told he was failing to meet its terms.
He was terminated after the 30-day period, according to the complaint. The filing alleges he was let go despite, in its words, "performing better than other younger employees," and characterizes the stated performance rationale as "pretextual."
The plaintiff brings two claims. One is under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which protects workers 40 and older. The other is under Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the state's counterpart. He alleges the company's conduct was "willful" and seeks reinstatement, back pay, benefits, and other relief.
For HR professionals, the sequence at the center of the complaint is a familiar one: a long, clean record, a change in management, a written warning, a PIP, and a termination that follows soon after. The allegations turn on whether that documentation reflected genuine performance concerns. The case is a reminder of the value of consistent treatment across age groups and of making sure feedback given in review meetings matches what is recorded in the file.
None of the allegations have been tested, and no court has ruled on the claims.
