She beat her sales target by 330%, then watched four younger colleagues get promoted
A 64-year-old director says Willis Towers Watson denied her a promotion because of her age, then moved to hand her clients to younger colleagues.
That is the claim in a lawsuit filed July 29, 2026, in federal court in Michigan against Willis Towers Watson US LLC. The plaintiff, a director in the firm's Michigan Health & Benefits practice who joined in 2016, says she was a consistent top performer.
Her 2025 numbers, as set out in the filing, were strong. Against a $1.5 million sales goal, she says she booked $4,943,000 - about 330% over target. Her book-of-business growth goal was 5%; she says she reached 50.6%. She was asked to retain 92% of her clients and says she kept all of them. Her billable-hours goal was 1,100; she says she logged 1,336.
Even so, the complaint says her manager told her in the fall of 2025 that she would not be considered for promotion to Senior Director in the April 1, 2026 cycle. The reason given, according to the filing, was that two Statements of Work had been signed late. She alleges those delays came from the firm's own internal indecision - one contract, she says, took more than 1.5 years because senior leaders could not settle on terms.
The complaint alleges the late paperwork was then used to hold her back at each step. She says she rated her own performance a 5 out of 5 and was told a 5 was "not possible" because of the late Statements of Work, then received a 4. She also alleges she was instructed to add language to her promotion case "acknowledging and apologizing for the late SOW signatures."
Around March 2026, according to the filing, four substantially younger colleagues were promoted to Senior Director. The complaint says three were roughly 30 years old and describes the plaintiff as significantly more qualified and experienced than all four. It also alleges they were advanced without the written business case and multi-level review the firm required of her, and without meeting the book-of-business levels the firm's own policy set.
The account transfers are where the case sharpens for an HR audience. The complaint alleges the firm sought to reassign the plaintiff's accounts to the newly promoted younger colleagues to build their books "at Plaintiff's expense." One client of about 2,200 employees had already been transferred to a younger colleague, the filing says, and she was asked to give up two more, including a client of roughly 9,800 employees. She refused in writing on April 20, 2026, and asked whether any other directors had been told to surrender part of their book. According to the complaint, she received no answer.
The plaintiff also alleges the firm rolled out a company-wide title change on April 1, 2026 that advanced everyone one level in name only, with no pay increase. She says that left her holding the Senior Director title, when a merit promotion would have carried her to Managing Director - a role the filing says comes with higher compensation and a larger bonus pool.
She brings her claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which protects workers 40 and older, and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. She received an EEOC right-to-sue letter on June 26, 2026. She alleges her age was the "but-for" cause of the promotion denial.
For HR leaders, the allegations map onto familiar pressure points: a performance score capped over a single administrative issue, a promotion process the filing says was applied unevenly across age groups, and an account-reassignment push the plaintiff says singled her out. Whether or not the claims survive, the case is a reminder of where age-discrimination risk tends to sit - in the gap between a written promotion policy and how it is actually applied, especially when a documented high performer is scored down.
None of the allegations have been tested in court, and no judge has ruled on the claims.
