Employee Survival Guide®
The Employee Survival Guide® is an employees only podcast about everything related to work and working. We will share with you all the information your employer does not want you to know about working and guide you through various work and employment law issues.
The Employee Survival Guide® podcast is hosted by seasoned Employment Law Attorney Mark Carey, who has only practiced in the area of Employment Law for the past 28 years. Mark has seen just about every type of work dispute there is and has filed several hundred work related lawsuits in state and federal courts around the country, including class action suits. He has a no frills and blunt approach to work issues faced by millions of workers nationwide. Mark endeavors to provide both sides to each and every issue discussed on the podcast so you can make an informed decision.
Subscribe to our show in your favorite podcast app including Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, and Overcast.
You can also subscribe to our feed via RSS or XML.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide ® please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Thank you!
For more information, please contact Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, or email at info@capclaw.com.
Also go to our website EmployeeSurvival.com for more helpful information about work and working.
Employee Survival Guide®
S6: Ep132: Age Bias at IKEA? Brandon Paine v. IKEA class action settlement
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI. The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to. Enjoy!
What happens when one of the world's most recognizable retail brands faces serious allegations of systemic age discrimination? Our latest episode pulls back the curtain on the recently settled lawsuit between Brandon Payne and IKEA, providing unprecedented insight into both sides of this complex legal battle.
We meticulously dissect three key legal documents: the detailed complaint from 48-year-old long-term employee Brandon Payne, IKEA's comprehensive response, and the surprising settlement filing from August 6, 2025. Payne's allegations paint a troubling picture of a corporate culture that allegedly preferred younger workers, with claims of explicit directives to hire managers under 35 and a reorganization initiative that resulted in his demotion and a staggering $10/hour pay cut.
The most compelling aspects of this case lie in the patterns Payne documented – a series of promotion rejections where significantly younger, allegedly less qualified candidates were selected instead. We explore IKEA's firm denials and multi-pronged legal defense strategy, which maintained all decisions were based on legitimate business factors rather than age. What makes this case particularly significant is its connection to at least five other similar lawsuits against IKEA, suggesting potentially broader issues within the organization.
Whether you're a business leader, HR professional, or simply interested in workplace equity, this episode offers crucial lessons about the delicate balance between organizational change and fair employment practices. The recent global settlement of these cases raises profound questions about the hidden costs of discrimination allegations beyond just legal expenses. How do such claims affect employee morale, public perception, and institutional trust? Listen now to understand the full story behind these headlines and what they reveal about age dynamics in today's workplace.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today we're really plunging into a fascinating set of legal documents. Could be challenging too.
Speaker 2:Definitely.
Speaker 1:We're talking about an age discrimination lawsuit.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And it's against a name. You'll absolutely recognize the global retailer IKEA.
Speaker 2:Right Big name.
Speaker 1:For this Deep Dive. We've gone through, well, quite a bit. There's a detailed legal complaint from the employee, the plaintiff Yep. Then there's IKEA's official response to all that, and this is pretty key. A very recent court filing just landed last week, august 6th 2025.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that last one changes things a bit. So our mission today really is to unpack these serious claims the employee made.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:Understand how IKEA pushed back, what their side was, and then, yeah, reveal the well surprising end to the case.
Speaker 1:Surprising how.
Speaker 2:We'll get to that. The goal really is just to pull out the key nuggets from all these. You know, dense legal docs give you a shortcut, so you're up to speed on this specific situation.
Speaker 1:Okay, let's dive in. Then we're looking at Brandon Payne versus IKEA. Now, payne was what? 48 at the time this kicked off.
Speaker 2:That's right, 48. And a long-term employee, not someone new.
Speaker 1:Right and his core claim is pretty direct. He's basically saying Ikea has this corporate culture, an actual culture that openly prefers younger employees, and he says this hit his career hard, denied promotions, even got demoted.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and what's really striking here, I think, is that the complaint it doesn't just focus on Payne himself.
Speaker 1:OK.
Speaker 2:It tries to paint this picture of a much broader issue. Systemic age bias Exactly the second admitted complaint. The specific document talks about age biased personnel goals. Wow, it talks about age-biased personnel goals and openly expressed preference for younger people as future leaders. Even claims there were actual directives sent out to stores nationwide.
Speaker 1:Directives say what.
Speaker 2:To hire younger people into certain roles. The complaint even alleges IKEA put out job ads openly seeking young talent and that their promotion process tracks and considers employee ages.
Speaker 1:That's very explicit. If true, Can you give us a really concrete example, something specific from the complaint about this alleged culture?
Speaker 2:Absolutely so. The complaint alleges, for instance, that if a store lost someone from its management team the store's steering group the directive was to fill that spot with someone under 35.
Speaker 1:Under 35, specific age cap.
Speaker 2:Right. It even claims these goals having a certain number of younger managers were put in writing by IKEA's US Strategic Human Resources Committee.
Speaker 1:In writing.
Speaker 2:Allegedly yes, yeah, and sent out to every store in the US. Now, sometimes they apparently framed it using other words.
Speaker 1:Like what.
Speaker 2:Like age distribution goals or maybe succession potential or even diversity be succession, potential or even diversity.
Speaker 1:So using words like potential or diversity, but maybe the allegation is with an age target behind them.
Speaker 2:That's precisely the question it raises. How does that internal company language, which might sound neutral or even positive, actually function if there are underlying age goals? It's a tricky area.
Speaker 1:Yeah, definitely. The complaint also mentioned something called organization for Growth or O4G. What was that about, according to Payne, OK, so O4G?
Speaker 2:The plaintiff describes it as this big reorganization effort by IKEA US and he claims its main goal was basically to push older employees out of management, either by firing them, demoting them or, you know, effectively forcing them out.
Speaker 1:How would they force them out?
Speaker 2:Well, the complaint alleges that through O4G, employees got new jobs right, but these jobs only had base pay protection for a limited time, until the end of 2018.
Speaker 1:Okay, and after that?
Speaker 2:After that date, if your new job was at a lower pay grade, boom, your pay got cut. The plaintiff calls this whole thing a scheme intended to harm older employees.
Speaker 1:OK, let's get more personal. Then Brandon Payne's own story. He started back in 2004,. Right, he was 34.
Speaker 2:Yep February 2004.
Speaker 1:And by 2006, age 36, he's a shopkeeper. Complaint says his performance was good, satisfactory or better.
Speaker 2:Correct Recognized performance. He even stepped up as an interim sales leader planner at one point, which was a step up from shopkeeper.
Speaker 1:So things were going OK, but then O4G hits.
Speaker 2:Exactly. Despite that positive track record, things allegedly changed. October 2017, part of this O4G thing we just discussed his shopkeeper job gets well demoted to an active selling leader role.
Speaker 1:A demotion, and what did that mean financially for him? Big impact.
Speaker 2:according to the complaint, after that pay protection ran out January 1st 2019, his hourly wage dropped by over $10 an hour.
Speaker 1:Over $10 an hour. That's significant.
Speaker 2:It really is and Payne claims IKEA told him the reason was just, you know, realignment of job functions to be more competitive.
Speaker 1:Standard corporate language maybe Right.
Speaker 2:But he alleges that was just a pretext, a cover story. The real reason, he claims, was his age.
Speaker 1:But you said his performance was still good even after the demotion.
Speaker 2:That's what makes it compelling. Yeah, His 2018 performance review after the O4G change apparently still praised him, Said he had so many great qualities as an IKEA leader passionate, fiercely loyal to his team.
Speaker 1:So, despite the demotion and the pay cut, he keeps trying to get promoted.
Speaker 2:He does, he keeps applying and this is really central to his individual claim. Can you walk us through some of those applications? What happened?
Speaker 1:Sure, the complaint lists quite a few. Let's see. May 2017, he's 47, applies for sales leader sales planner Right rejected the complaint alleges four substantially younger, less qualified employees got picked instead Ages 26, 27, 28, 28.
Speaker 2:Wow All in their 20s.
Speaker 1:Then December 2017 applies for the same rule again. Rejected again in Feb 2018. Complaint says a 30-year-old, audrey Bates, got it, and Payne claims he was better qualified.
Speaker 2:Okay, another younger person.
Speaker 1:June 2018. Applies for active selling manager in Texas Rejected A 30-year-old, jeffrey Borlick, gets it. The complaint points out Borlick had four years with IKEA. Payne had about 14.
Speaker 2:14 years versus four. That's a big difference in experience.
Speaker 1:Then August 2018, active selling manager. Again this time Norfolk Virginia rejected September 2018. And this one has a specific conversation attached to it.
Speaker 2:Oh, tell me about that.
Speaker 1:Payne apparently had a call with the customer experience manager Tiffin Moore, and Moore allegedly told him that, since active selling was a new role, ikea wanted someone with new and innovative ideas and they'd probably hire an external candidate.
Speaker 2:Implying internal older candidates weren't bringing new ideas.
Speaker 1:That's how Payne took it. He stated he understood this to mean that IKEA considers an employee's age and that it wanted to hire someone younger. And they did hire an external person.
Speaker 2:Interesting conversation. Any more rejections listed?
Speaker 1:Yep December 2018, sales clan manager in Texas Rejected Jan 2019. Complaint says a 31-year-old got it. Payne claims he was at least as, if not more, qualified.
Speaker 2:Another one in their early 30s.
Speaker 1:January 2019, active selling manager in San Diego. Rejected March 2019. Complaint says Ryan Stone in his 30s, got it Again. Payne felt he was equally or more qualified. Okay, and then believe it or not. Aprilne felt he was equally or more qualified. And then, believe it or not, april 2019, he applies again for that same active selling manager job in Norfolk Virginia.
Speaker 2:The one with the new ideas comment.
Speaker 1:That's the one Rejected again in May 2019.
Speaker 2:So a clear pattern of applications and rejections, always allegedly in favor of younger candidates, Were there other things mentioned beyond just the promotion denials.
Speaker 1:Yes, the complaint also details alleged comments and conduct by management, specifically at the IKEA New Haven store.
Speaker 2:Like. What kind of comments?
Speaker 1:For example, one manager allegedly asked an older job applicant during an interview for a promotion if she was thinking about retiring soon.
Speaker 2:That's true, yeah.
Speaker 1:Another allegation that's true. Yeah, another allegation. The HR manager there, jacqueline Deschamps, apparently said that every store needed to hire a management steering member under age 30. Again that explicit under 30 target and the store manager, Christophe Stein, allegedly asked Payne himself why he'd waited so long in his career to apply for jobs leading leaders.
Speaker 2:Implying. He was too old to be starting that path now.
Speaker 1:That seems to be the implication Payne drew. The complaint also just generally states several older employees have recently been demoted or pushed out from that store, so it's building a picture.
Speaker 2:Okay, a really detailed picture from the plaintiff's side. So what did IKEA say? How did they respond to all these very specific, very serious allegations?
Speaker 1:Right the company's defense. We looked at their answer document and the short version for almost every single claim about age discrimination denied Flat out. They admitted some basic facts, sure Like yes, brandon Payne worked for us. Yes, this is his birth year. Yes, this is his current job. Yes, he applied for these other jobs and didn't get them.
Speaker 2:But not because of his age.
Speaker 1:Exactly. They admitted the facts of what happened, but denied the discriminatory. Why. Like the pay cut after 04G? They admitted his pay went down.
Speaker 2:OK.
Speaker 1:But they denied it was a demotion because of age and they denied their stated reason the realignment thing was just a pretext.
Speaker 2:So sticking to their guns that it was legitimate business reasons, not age.
Speaker 1:Pretty much so. If we look at their overall legal strategy, what does that tell us? What were their main lines of defense?
Speaker 2:Well, stepping back their defenses section in the answer is quite revealing. They hit several key points.
Speaker 1:OK.
Speaker 2:First, just a blanket denial of any intent to discriminate against pain, explicitly stated Right. Second, they claimed all their actions were taken in good faith. They believed they were following the law.
Speaker 1:Standard defense Maybe.
Speaker 2:Fairly standard, yeah. Third, and importantly, they argued their decisions were based on reasonable factor or factors other than age. Rfoa, it's sometimes called Meaning. Meaning basically something else explains the decision. Maybe qualifications, interview, performance, business needs, whatever Anything but age Got it. They also argued Payne couldn't prove age was the but-for cause. That's a high legal standard. It means he'd have to show that, but for his age the decision would have been different. Not just that age was a factor, but the deciding factor.
Speaker 1:Okay, yeah, that sounds tough to prove.
Speaker 2:It can be and interestingly they also raised a defense saying essentially if Payne didn't use IKEA's internal anti-discrimination policy and complaint procedure properly, Then his lawsuit fails. Then his claims fail. Yes so kind of putting the onus back on him to use the internal system first. It's a multi-pronged defense strategy.
Speaker 1:OK, now you mentioned earlier, this wasn't the only case like this against IKEA. The complaint referenced others.
Speaker 2:That's right. Yeah, it wasn't just Payne's isolated experience, according to his own filing.
Speaker 1:What did it say?
Speaker 2:The complaint details that since early 2018, at least five other current or former IKEA US employees had filed their own age discrimination lawsuits.
Speaker 1:Five others, yeah, in different courts.
Speaker 2:Yeah, various US district courts, yeah, in different courts yeah, various US district courts, yeah, and alleging similar things patterns, of age, bias, cases like D'Onofrio v Ikea and Antonelli Jr v Ikea.
Speaker 1:And why include those in Payne's complaint?
Speaker 2:Well, the argument is that citing these other lawsuits helps support the idea that this wasn't just about one person, but possibly a systemic age discrimination issue or a pattern or practice across the company. It has weight to the broader claims.
Speaker 1:Right Strengthens the culture of biases argument. Ok, so that brings us to the really recent news, the filing from just last week. What happened?
Speaker 2:Yeah, this is the big development. We got this letter filed with the court August 6, 2025. Very recent and it states pretty clearly that, with Judge Reuter's assistance, the issues between the parties in the above captioned cases have settled.
Speaker 1:Settled OK, but you said cases plural.
Speaker 2:Exactly, that's the key thing here this letter, this settlement. It wasn't just for Brandon Payne's lawsuit.
Speaker 1:Ah, it included the others too.
Speaker 2:It included several others, including those D'Onofrio, antonelli and another one Branson that were mentioned earlier. Multiple cases all wrapped up together.
Speaker 1:So a global settlement, almost. What did they ask the court to do?
Speaker 2:The parties jointly requested that the court enter an order dismissing each action with prejudice.
Speaker 1:With prejudice that means that's crucial.
Speaker 2:It means the cases are permanently closed. They cannot be brought back to court again. It's final.
Speaker 1:So no trial, no verdict. They reached an agreement outside of court covering multiple lawsuits.
Speaker 2:Precisely A resolution through settlement, likely confidential terms, that puts an end to this whole batch of litigation. It often suggests, you know, a strategic move by the company to avoid the risks and costs of continued fighting, even if they don't admit any wrongdoing.
Speaker 1:Okay, so let's try and wrap this up. What does this all mean for you listening? We've gone deep into some really serious claims of age bias. We followed one specific employee's story, his alleged demotion, the promotion denials. We saw IKEA's pretty firm denials across the board Consistent denials. We saw Ikea's pretty firm denials across the board.
Speaker 2:Consistent denials yeah.
Speaker 1:And now, just last week, a settlement not just for him, but for several similar cases.
Speaker 2:Right. So if you connect all those dots, you have this pattern of claims from multiple employees. You have the company pushing back hard with denials and legal defenses and then ultimately you get this confidential settlement covering multiple suits.
Speaker 1:So what's the takeaway from that?
Speaker 2:Well, it really brings up a critical question for any large organization, doesn't it? Beyond the obvious legal bills, what are the sort of hidden costs when company faces repeated claims like this?
Speaker 1:You mean like reputation morale.
Speaker 2:Exactly. What's the impact on employee morale, on how the public sees the company, on trust within the company? Even if they settle without admitting fault, these things can linger. It really highlights that tightrope walk companies have to manage.
Speaker 1:Between what.
Speaker 2:Between making organizational changes, developing talents, staying competitive, but doing it all in a way that's fair and legally compliant, especially around sensitive issues like age.
Speaker 1:Yeah, a lot to think about there. Definitely a powerful look inside how these big legal fights can play out. This deep dive certainly paints a clearer picture of those dynamics.