14. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs with the same force and effect as if fully set out in specific detail herein.  15. In May 2012, Hewlett-Packard [“HP”] launched what it termed a multi- year restructuring plan to “fuel innovation and enable investment”.  As part of this strategy, HP announced that it expected “approximately 27,000 employees” to exit the company by fiscal year 2014.    16. The company proposed accomplishing this goal through the offering of “early retirement” packages.  The “early retirement” program for U.S. employees would be based on whether the impacted individual's combined “age and years of service” exceeded certain levels. Attached to this pleading is a copy of the HP Workforce Reduction plan provided to Plaintiff Jackson.    19. In an SEC filing for dated May 22, 2014, Hewlett-Packard revised its previous job elimination estimate of 34,000, stating that the number would increase by 11,000 to 16,000.    20. In October 2014, Hewlett-Packard announced its intention to split into two public companies, Hewlett Packard Enterprise ("HPE") and HP, Inc. ("HPI").   22. On October 31, 2015 and November 1, 2015, HP, Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company formerly came into existence.   23. On November 1, 2015, Meg Whitman became Charmian of HP, Inc. and CEO of Hewlett Packard Enterprise.  During a November 2, 2015, interview with CNBC's David Faber Ms. Whitman expressed the following when questioned about job cuts: Faber: Still with a quarter of a million people work the company, you did announce significant job cuts about a month or so ago, when you gave - - or maybe a bit more, six weeks—when you gave us more details.  Is that going to be it for HPE?   *** Whitman: That should be it.  I mean, that will allow us to right size our enterprise services business to get the right onshore/offshore mix, to make sure that we have a labor pyramid with lots of young people coming in right out of college and graduate school and early in their careers. That's an important part of the future of the company.  So, it should be the last that we see.  And you know, this will take another couple of years and then we should be done. Plaintiff Enoh I. Enoh (Race and Age Claims)  25. After HP split into HPE and HPI in November 2015, Mr. Enoh's became an employee of HPE and his job title changed to that of Field Services Engineer. Despite receiving satisfactory evaluations for most of his career, Mr. Enoh was terminated by HPE on May 26, 2017.    26. Before his termination, Mr. Enoh was part of a 14-member team of Field Services Engineers.  Of those 14 team members, three were African-American, and Mr. Enoh was the senior team member in terms years as an HP/HPE employee and chronological age.      27. At the time of his termination Mr. Enoh's performance ratings were the same or better than most members of his team, however they were retained.  Mr. Enoh was informed that his separation was due to "restructuring," however to his knowledge he was the only individual on his team let go even though his performance was better or at least equal to his Caucasian and/or younger counterparts.    28. Furthermore, shortly before terminating Mr. Enoh, HPE hired 5 or 6 Caucasian and/or younger employees.  Mr. Enoh was required to train and mentor some of these individuals.        30. The Defendants also discriminated against Mr. Enoh because of his age in that until the time of his termination he had been a model employee and should not have been subject to the workforce restructuring plan.    31. Mr. Enoh was subjected to a reduction in force of one as the majority of the employees retained were younger than him.     Plaintiff Christopher Jackson's  (Race and Age Claims)  32. Plaintiff Christopher Jackson ("Jackson") is a 52 year old African-American male.  Mr. Jackson worked for Hewlett Packard from July 15, 1996 to July 18, 2016, with his last position being District Manager.   33. Up until 2015, Mr. Jackson had always received satisfactory performance evaluations and his career with HP had been exemplary.  In 2014, Mr. Jackson became aware of the promotion of two Caucasian male employees, Mark Valan and Thomas Medforth.    35. In 2015, HP allowed Medforth to use an antiquated evaluative tool to measure the performance of District Managers. This evaluative tool was introduced mid-year and disproportionately graded as low the performance of African-American managers.    36. Based on this evaluative tool, Mr. Jackson was rated as “Partially Achieved” which means that he did not meet his performance goals for the rating period.  In November 2015, Medforth was elevated as Manager for all District Managers.  Mr. Jackson did not get a chance to compete for this position as his low rating of that same year precluded him from applying.  Also, at this time, Mr. Jackson became an employee of HPI.   38. This caused the African-American managers to miss their production goals.  On June 29, 2016, Mr. Jackson complained to HPI that he was being discriminated against because of his race.    39. On July 18, 2016, Mr. Jackson was informed that he was being terminated.  Mr. Jackson was informed that his separation was due to “restructuring”, however, he was the only individual in his department let go even though his performance was better or at least equal to that of his Caucasian and/or younger counterparts.    40. Mr. Jackson personally observed that HP, HPE, and HPI has or had very few African-Americans in positions above the District Manager level.        Plaintiff Derek L. Mobley's (Race Claims)  42. In November 2016, Mr. Mobley was part of a training class for Advanced Solutions Engineers.  Mr. Mobley was the only member of his training class with a Server + Certification which was directly applicable to the job.  This training class was made up of contract workers who were trying to gain permanent employment with HPE.    43. Upon entering this training program, Mr. Mobley and the other members of the training class were informed by HPE’s representatives that if their performance was satisfactory they would transition to full-time employment within 4 to 6 months.  44. Mr. Mobley's class was made up of approximately seventeen individuals, 14 African-Americans, two Caucasians, and one Turkish-American.  Around April of 2017, HPE announced that they were instituting a hiring freeze.      45. Later in April 2017, Mr. Mobley learned that the only remaining Caucasian contract worker in the training class was hired as a full-time employee despite the alleged hiring freeze.    46. The other Caucasian contract worker had resigned. Mr. Mobley later inquired as to whether there were any other positions that had become "unfrozen" and was instructed to visit HPE’s website.    48. HPE in contravention of its own allegedly non-discriminatory hiring practices did not post all jobs and instead relied on a "tap on the shoulder" procedure whereby it awarded positions of higher pay and prestige to Caucasian employees.   Plaintiff William Murrell’s (Race Claims)  49. Plaintiff Willaim Murrell is an African-American male.  In 2000 or 2001, Mr. Murrell began working for HP as a contract employee.  For the next 5 or 6 years, Mr. Murrell attempted to become a regular full-time employee of HP but was not successful until 2007.    50. Caucasian contract workers did not have wait this long before they became full-time employees with HP.  Mr. Murrell is a resident of Atlanta, Georgia. Upon hiring on full-time with HP, Mr. Murrell's job title was Field Service Support Representative.    52. As Field Service Support Representative II, Mr. Murrell performed satisfactorily and received favorable performance reviews.  He also served as a Senior Team Lead and in that role he was responsible for monitoring the day to day work of less senior team members.      53. Around January or February 2016, Mr. Murrell was informed by his manager, Christopher Jackson [African-American] that he was being considered for a merit promotion to the position of Customer Engineer III. [Doc.#30: ¶76].       54. At that time, Mr. Murrell had been a Field Services Support Representative for approximately 9 years.  Caucasian employees who started their careers at the same time as Mr. Murrell and that were in his peer group, have advanced much faster through the company to where they are now District Managers or in other positions of higher authority, prestige and pay.      55. On January 26, 2017, Thomas Medford [Caucasian male] announced the promotion of 17 individuals.  Mr. Murrell was not selected for promotion and instead two Caucasian junior Team Leads [Bill Howell & Robert Brown] were.    77. Representative Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all applicable paragraphs above as part of this Count of the Complaint.  78. Defendants have discriminated against the Representative Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent with regards to selection procedures and other terms and conditions of employment because of their race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.      79. Defendants’ conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful and conducted with disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class.  81. Representative Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all applicable paragraphs above as part of this Count of the Complaint.  82. The criteria utilized by Defendants in making selection decisions-to include promotions and lay-offs-discriminate on the basis of race in violation of §703(k) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(k).    83. Defendants allowed an overwhelmingly Caucasian group of selectors to use a company wide “Performance Evaluation” policy that allowed them to manipulate the selection process to the detriment of their African-American employees.    84. These processes disparately impacted African-American employees because they allow subjectivity and favoritism to influence employment decisions. Because of this, the decision-makers are free to exercise their discretion in an unguided, subjective manner that provides a ready mechanism for Caucasians to vent discriminatory feelings upon African-American employees.  86. As a direct result of Defendants’ discriminatory policies and/or practices as described above, Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost past and future income, compensation, and benefits. 87. Representative Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all applicable paragraphs above as part of this Count of the Complaint.  88. This Claim is brought by the Representative Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the collective they seek to represent. Defendants engaged in an intentional, company-wide, and systematic policy, pattern, and/or practice of discrimination against employees ages 40 and older.   90. These company-wide policies are intended to and do have the effect of denying Plaintiffs and the collective of employment opportunities because of their age. The discriminatory acts that constitute Defendants’ pattern and/or practice of discrimination have occurred both within and outside the liability period in this case.  91. As a direct result of Defendants’ discriminatory policies and/or practices as described above, Plaintiffs and the collective have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost past and future income, compensation, and benefits.  92. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination and unjustified disparate treatment prohibited by 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). 93. Representative Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference all applicable paragraphs above as part of this Count of the Complaint.  95. Specifically Defendants’ promotions and facially neutral lay-off policies have had a disparate impact on individuals over the age of 40.   96. Defendants have maintained these discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or practices both within and outside the liability period in this case.  97. As a direct result of the Defendants’ discriminatory policies and/or practices as described above, Plaintiffs and the collective they seek to represent have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost past and future income, compensation, and benefits. COUNT ONE Intentional Discrimination on the Basis of Race  in Violation of Title VII of the  Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981  Disparate Impact Discrimination on the Basis of Race In Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964  Disparate Impact Discrimination Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967  Intentional Discrimination Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 