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.
Episode Transcript
Welcome to the Deep Dive.
Today we're really plunginginto a fascinating set of legal
documents.
Could be challenging too.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Definitely.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
We're talking about an age discrimination lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
And it's against a name.
You'll absolutely recognize theglobal retailer IKEA.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Right Big name.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
For this Deep Dive.
We've gone through, well, quitea bit.
There's a detailed legalcomplaint from the employee, the
plaintiff Yep.
Then there's IKEA's officialresponse to all that, and this
is pretty key.
A very recent court filing justlanded last week, august 6th
2025.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Yeah, that last one changes things a bit.
So our mission today really isto unpack these serious claims
the employee made.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Understand how IKEA pushed back, what their side was
, and then, yeah, reveal thewell surprising end to the case.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Surprising how.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
We'll get to that.
The goal really is just to pullout the key nuggets from all
these.
You know, dense legal docs giveyou a shortcut, so you're up to
speed on this specificsituation.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Okay, let's dive in.
Then we're looking at BrandonPayne versus IKEA.
Now, payne was what?
48 at the time this kicked off.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
That's right, 48.
And a long-term employee, notsomeone new.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Right and his core claim is pretty direct.
He's basically saying Ikea hasthis corporate culture, an
actual culture that openlyprefers younger employees, and
he says this hit his career hard, denied promotions, even got
demoted.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Yeah, and what's really striking here, I think,
is that the complaint it doesn'tjust focus on Payne himself.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
OK.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
It tries to paint this picture of a much broader
issue.
Systemic age bias Exactly thesecond admitted complaint.
The specific document talksabout age biased personnel goals
.
Wow, it talks about age-biasedpersonnel goals and openly
expressed preference for youngerpeople as future leaders.
Even claims there were actualdirectives sent out to stores
nationwide.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Directives say what.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
To hire younger people into certain roles.
The complaint even alleges IKEAput out job ads openly seeking
young talent and that theirpromotion process tracks and
considers employee ages.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
That's very explicit.
If true, Can you give us areally concrete example,
something specific from thecomplaint about this alleged
culture?
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Absolutely so.
The complaint alleges, forinstance, that if a store lost
someone from its management teamthe store's steering group the
directive was to fill that spotwith someone under 35.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
Under 35, specific age cap.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Right.
It even claims these goalshaving a certain number of
younger managers were put inwriting by IKEA's US Strategic
Human Resources Committee.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
In writing.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Allegedly yes, yeah, and sent out to every store in
the US.
Now, sometimes they apparentlyframed it using other words.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Like what.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Like age distribution goals or maybe succession
potential or even diversity besuccession, potential or even
diversity.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
So using words like potential or diversity, but
maybe the allegation is with anage target behind them.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
That's precisely the question it raises.
How does that internal companylanguage, which might sound
neutral or even positive,actually function if there are
underlying age goals?
It's a tricky area.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Yeah, definitely.
The complaint also mentionedsomething called organization
for Growth or O4G.
What was that about, accordingto Payne, OK, so O4G?
Speaker 2 (03:10):
The plaintiff describes it as this big
reorganization effort by IKEA USand he claims its main goal was
basically to push olderemployees out of management,
either by firing them, demotingthem or, you know, effectively
forcing them out.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
How would they force them out?
Speaker 2 (03:26):
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 (03:38):
Okay, and after that?
Speaker 2 (03:39):
After that date, if your new job was at a lower pay
grade, boom, your pay got cut.
The plaintiff calls this wholething a scheme intended to harm
older employees.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
OK, let's get more personal.
Then Brandon Payne's own story.
He started back in 2004,.
Right, he was 34.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Yep February 2004.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
And by 2006, age 36, he's a shopkeeper.
Complaint says his performancewas good, satisfactory or better
.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Correct Recognized performance.
He even stepped up as aninterim sales leader planner at
one point, which was a step upfrom shopkeeper.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
So things were going OK, but then O4G hits.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Exactly.
Despite that positive trackrecord, things allegedly changed
.
October 2017, part of this O4Gthing we just discussed his
shopkeeper job gets well demotedto an active selling leader
role.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
A demotion, and what did that mean financially for
him?
Big impact.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
according to the complaint, after that pay
protection ran out January 1st2019, his hourly wage dropped by
over $10 an hour.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
Over $10 an hour.
That's significant.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
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 (04:44):
Standard corporate language maybe Right.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
But he alleges that was just a pretext, a cover
story.
The real reason, he claims, washis age.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
But you said his performance was still good even
after the demotion.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
That's what makes it compelling.
Yeah, His 2018 performancereview after the O4G change
apparently still praised him,Said he had so many great
qualities as an IKEA leaderpassionate, fiercely loyal to
his team.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
So, despite the demotion and the pay cut, he
keeps trying to get promoted.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
He does, he keeps applying and this is really
central to his individual claim.
Can you walk us through some ofthose applications?
What happened?
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Sure, the complaint lists quite a few.
Let's see.
May 2017, he's 47, applies forsales leader sales planner Right
rejected the complaint allegesfour substantially younger, less
qualified employees got pickedinstead Ages 26, 27, 28, 28.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Wow All in their 20s.
Speaker 1 (05:37):
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 (05:49):
Okay, another younger person.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
June 2018.
Applies for active sellingmanager in Texas Rejected A
30-year-old, jeffrey Borlick,gets it.
The complaint points outBorlick had four years with IKEA
.
Payne had about 14.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
14 years versus four.
That's a big difference inexperience.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
Then August 2018, active selling manager.
Again this time NorfolkVirginia rejected September 2018
.
And this one has a specificconversation attached to it.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Oh, tell me about that.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Payne apparently had a call with the customer
experience manager Tiffin Moore,and Moore allegedly told him
that, since active selling was anew role, ikea wanted someone
with new and innovative ideasand they'd probably hire an
external candidate.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Implying internal older candidates weren't
bringing new ideas.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
That's how Payne took it.
He stated he understood this tomean that IKEA considers an
employee's age and that itwanted to hire someone younger.
And they did hire an externalperson.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
Interesting conversation.
Any more rejections listed?
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Yep December 2018, sales clan manager in Texas
Rejected Jan 2019.
Complaint says a 31-year-oldgot it.
Payne claims he was at least as, if not more, qualified.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Another one in their early 30s.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
January 2019, active selling manager in San Diego.
Rejected March 2019.
Complaint says Ryan Stone inhis 30s, got it Again.
Payne felt he was equally ormore qualified.
Okay, and then believe it ornot.
Aprilne felt he was equally ormore qualified.
And then, believe it or not,april 2019, he applies again for
that same active sellingmanager job in Norfolk Virginia.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
The one with the new ideas comment.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
That's the one Rejected again in May 2019.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
So a clear pattern of applications and rejections,
always allegedly in favor ofyounger candidates, Were there
other things mentioned beyondjust the promotion denials.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
Yes, the complaint also details alleged comments
and conduct by management,specifically at the IKEA New
Haven store.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Like.
What kind of comments?
Speaker 1 (07:37):
For example, one manager allegedly asked an older
job applicant during aninterview for a promotion if she
was thinking about retiringsoon.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
That's true, yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
Another allegation that's true.
Yeah, another allegation.
The HR manager there,jacqueline Deschamps, apparently
said that every store needed tohire a management steering
member under age 30.
Again that explicit under 30target and the store manager,
Christophe Stein, allegedlyasked Payne himself why he'd
waited so long in his career toapply for jobs leading leaders.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Implying.
He was too old to be startingthat path now.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
That seems to be the implication Payne drew.
The complaint also justgenerally states several older
employees have recently beendemoted or pushed out from that
store, so it's building apicture.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Okay, a really detailed picture from the
plaintiff's side.
So what did IKEA say?
How did they respond to allthese very specific, very
serious allegations?
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Right the company's defense.
We looked at their answerdocument and the short version
for almost every single claimabout 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 otherjobs and didn't get them.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
But not because of his age.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
Exactly.
They admitted the facts of whathappened, but denied the
discriminatory.
Why.
Like the pay cut after 04G?
They admitted his pay went down.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
OK.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
But they denied it was a demotion because of age
and they denied their statedreason the realignment thing was
just a pretext.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
So sticking to their guns that it was legitimate
business reasons, not age.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Pretty much so.
If we look at their overalllegal strategy, what does that
tell us?
What were their main lines ofdefense?
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Well, stepping back their defenses section in the
answer is quite revealing.
They hit several key points.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
OK.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
First, just a blanket denial of any intent to
discriminate against pain,explicitly stated Right.
Second, they claimed all theiractions were taken in good faith
.
They believed they werefollowing the law.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Standard defense Maybe.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Fairly standard, yeah .
Third, and importantly, theyargued their decisions were
based on reasonable factor orfactors other than age.
Rfoa, it's sometimes calledMeaning.
Meaning basically somethingelse explains the decision.
Maybe qualifications, interview, performance, business needs,
whatever Anything but age Got it.
They also argued Payne couldn'tprove age was the but-for cause
(10:03):
.
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 (10:14):
Okay, yeah, that sounds tough to prove.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
It can be and interestingly they also raised a
defense saying essentially ifPayne didn't use IKEA's internal
anti-discrimination policy andcomplaint procedure properly,
Then his lawsuit fails.
Then his claims fail.
Yes so kind of putting the onusback on him to use the internal
system first.
It's a multi-pronged defensestrategy.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
OK, now you mentioned earlier, this wasn't the only
case like this against IKEA.
The complaint referenced others.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
That's right.
Yeah, it wasn't just Payne'sisolated experience, according
to his own filing.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
What did it say?
Speaker 2 (10:44):
The complaint details that since early 2018, at least
five other current or formerIKEA US employees had filed
their own age discriminationlawsuits.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
Five others, yeah, in different courts.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Yeah, various US district courts, yeah, in
different courts yeah, variousUS district courts, yeah, and
alleging similar things patterns, of age, bias, cases like
D'Onofrio v Ikea and AntonelliJr v Ikea.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
And why include those in Payne's complaint?
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Well, the argument is that citing these other
lawsuits helps support the ideathat this wasn't just about one
person, but possibly a systemicage discrimination issue or a
pattern or practice across thecompany.
It has weight to the broaderclaims.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Right Strengthens the culture of biases argument.
Ok, so that brings us to thereally recent news, the filing
from just last week.
What happened?
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Yeah, this is the big development.
We got this letter filed withthe court August 6, 2025.
Very recent and it statespretty clearly that, with Judge
Reuter's assistance, the issuesbetween the parties in the above
captioned cases have settled.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Settled OK, but you said cases plural.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Exactly, that's the key thing here this letter, this
settlement.
It wasn't just for BrandonPayne's lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Ah, it included the others too.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
It included several others, including those
D'Onofrio, antonelli and anotherone Branson that were mentioned
earlier.
Multiple cases all wrapped uptogether.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
So a global settlement, almost.
What did they ask the court todo?
Speaker 2 (12:07):
The parties jointly requested that the court enter
an order dismissing each actionwith prejudice.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
With prejudice that means that's crucial.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
It means the cases are permanently closed.
They cannot be brought back tocourt again.
It's final.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
So no trial, no verdict.
They reached an agreementoutside of court covering
multiple lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Precisely A resolution through settlement,
likely confidential terms, thatputs an end to this whole batch
of litigation.
It often suggests, you know, astrategic move by the company to
avoid the risks and costs ofcontinued fighting, even if they
don't admit any wrongdoing.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
Okay, so let's try and wrap this up.
What does this all mean for youlistening?
We've gone deep into somereally serious claims of age
bias.
We followed one specificemployee's story, his alleged
demotion, the promotion denials.
We saw IKEA's pretty firmdenials across the board
Consistent denials.
We saw Ikea's pretty firmdenials across the board.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
Consistent denials yeah.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
And now, just last week, a settlement not just for
him, but for several similarcases.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Right.
So if you connect all thosedots, you have this pattern of
claims from multiple employees.
You have the company pushingback hard with denials and legal
defenses and then ultimatelyyou get this confidential
settlement covering multiplesuits.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
So what's the takeaway from that?
Speaker 2 (13:23):
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 facesrepeated claims like this?
Speaker 1 (13:34):
You mean like reputation morale.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Exactly.
What's the impact on employeemorale, on how the public sees
the company, on trust within thecompany?
Even if they settle withoutadmitting fault, these things
can linger.
It really highlights thattightrope walk companies have to
manage.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Between what.
Speaker 2 (13:50):
Between making organizational changes,
developing talents, stayingcompetitive, but doing it all in
a way that's fair and legallycompliant, especially around
sensitive issues like age.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Yeah, a lot to think about there.
Definitely a powerful lookinside how these big legal
fights can play out.
This deep dive certainly paintsa clearer picture of those
dynamics.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.