1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

_______________________________

)

JOHN RICHARDS, )

) Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-758

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS )

MACHINES CORP., )

)

Respondent.)

_______________________________)

PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

1. Petitioner John Richards worked for Respondent International 

Business Machines Corporation (hereinafter “IBM”). He has attempted to bring a 

claim against IBM in arbitration for discrimination under the Age Discrimination 

in Employment Act (“ADEA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., in connection 

with the termination of his employment.

2.

Pursuant to Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act 

(“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §1, et seq., Petitioner hereby moves to vacate the arbitration

award dismissing his claim.

Case 3:22-cv-00758-N Document 1 Filed 04/04/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1
2

3.

4. Petitioner thus seeks vacatur of the arbitrator’s award 

This action is brought pursuant to Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 

9 U.S.C. §1, et seq. and the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-

02.

PARTIES

5. Petitioner John Richards is a resident and domiciliary of Argyle, 

Texas. Between April 2011 until his termination, he was an employee of 

Defendant. His last day of work was on July 18, 2018.

6. Respondent International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) is 

incorporated and maintains its principal place of business in New York.

Case 3:22-cv-00758-N Document 1 Filed 04/04/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID 2
3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 as the 

underlying claim sounds in federal law, specifically the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. 

8. This Court also has jurisdiction over these proceedings pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. §1331 as this action arises under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 

U.S.C. §1, et seq. The FAA provides that petitions to vacate arbitration awards 

shall be made in the judicial district in which the award was made. See 9 U.S.C. § 

10.

9. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10 and 28 

U.S.C. § 1391 as the arbitration award was made in this judicial district, in Dallas, 

Texas.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

10.

11.

12. This discriminatory scheme is detailed in the Second Amended 

Complaint in the matter of Rusis et al. v. International Business Machines Corp., 

Case 3:22-cv-00758-N Document 1 Filed 04/04/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID 3
4

C.A. No. 18-cv-08434 (S.D.N.Y.) (Dkt. 179), a class and collective action pending 

in the Southern District of New York, brought under the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act (“ADEA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Briefly stated, in 

Rusis, the plaintiffs allege that IBM has pushed out thousands of older workers 

over a several year period, while hiring younger workers (which the company often 

refers to as “Early Professional Hires” or “New Collar” workers), in order to better 

compete with newer technology companies, such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, 

and others.

13. Indeed, IBM has been investigated for age discrimination by the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Following a multi-year 

investigation, on August 31, 2020, the EEOC issued a classwide determination in 

which it found reasonable cause to believe that IBM discriminated against older 

employees during the period 2013 to 2018. The EEOC stated in its determination 

letter that its conclusion was supported by dozens of interviews it had conducted 

across the company, as well as analysis of data, and it rejected IBM’s attempt to 

justify and defend the layoffs of the 58 charging parties, whose claims had been 

consolidated for investigation, through individualized explanations.

14. When it laid off employees, including Petitioner, IBM avoided 

providing disclosures of the ages of employees who had been laid off and those not 

laid off (and other related information), as required by the Older Workers’ Benefits 

Case 3:22-cv-00758-N Document 1 Filed 04/04/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID 4
5

Protections Act (“OWBPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(H), by not including a waiver 

of ADEA claims in the release that it asked the employees to sign. Instead, it 

offered the employees subject to being laid off a very modest severance payment in 

exchange for a waiver of almost all legal claims, other than a claim under the 

ADEA. The agreement provided, however, that if the employee chose to pursue a 

claim under the ADEA, it would need to be in individual arbitration.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Case 3:22-cv-00758-N Document 1 Filed 04/04/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID 5
6

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

Case 3:22-cv-00758-N Document 1 Filed 04/04/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID 6
7

26.

27.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that this Court enter the following relief:

a) Vacate the arbitrator’s award 

b) Find and declare that IBM’s arbitration agreement permits arbitrators to 

review and consider motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. 

c) Any other relief to which Petitioner may be entitled.

Dated: April 4, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

JOHN RICHARDS,

By his attorneys,

/s/ Drew Herrmann 

Drew N. Herrmann

Texas Bar No. 24086523

Pamela G. Herrmann

Texas Bar No. 24104030

Case 3:22-cv-00758-N Document 1 Filed 04/04/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID 7
8

HERRMANN LAW, PLLC

801 Cherry St., Suite 2365

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

(817) 479-9229

drew@herrmannlaw.com

Shannon Liss-Riordan

(pro hac vice anticipated) 

Thomas Fowler

(pro hac vice anticipated) 

Matthew Patton

(pro hac vice anticipated) 

LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000

Boston, MA 02116

(617) 994-5800

Fax: (617) 994-5801

sliss@llrlaw.com

tfowler@llrlaw.com

mpatton@llrlaw.com

Counsel for Petitioner

Case 3:22-cv-00758-N Document 1 Filed 04/04/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID 8