When accounting goes unaccounted for
Bloomberg reported yesterday that one of the ex-PwC employees responsible for LuxLeaks "was actually looking for training documents when he stumbled upon the files."
That sounds less like a “quirk” and more like some idiot naming a folder: “HOW TO: MASSIVE INTERNATIONAL TAX AVOIDANCE.”
Never mind that "state-of-the-art" and "Detroit" don't often collide in the same sentence; what's important […]
The Telegraph reported the following from PwC’s Lamaze practice (probably): Britain faces a baby bust […]
[/caption]
Or any firm for that matter. There’s probably some opinions on this but allegedly at PwC it’s 54 on the low end and if you’re approaching the firm’s mandatory retirement age of 60 then you’re definitely not getting the bump.
The reason we bring it up is that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has granted new life to an age discrimination lawsuit against PwC. Two advisory professionals, Harold Schuler and C. Westbrook Murphy’s lawsuit alleges that P. Dubs de-nied their admittance because they were close to the Firm’s mandatory retirement age.
The partner track at accounting firms is a long and tough road the way it is and for partners to allege age discrimination seems like insult to injury.
The DC Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs deserve some closure on whether or not the bigwigs in New York really snubbed them based on their age:
Judge Douglas Ginsburg said a 2008 D.C. Circuit ruling involving Schuler entitled the plaintiffs to a “reasonable inference” that PricewaterhouseCoopers’ decisions not to promote them were made in New York, where the firm is based.
“PwC says (the earlier case) ‘does not control’ because it addressed only PwC’s adoption and maintenance of a discriminatory policy, not the ‘discrete decision’ not to admit (Schuler) to partnership,'” Ginsburg wrote. “To which we say: Pettifoggery and piffle!”
Nice touch, Judge Ginsburg. So this means the case goes back to the district so they can get to the bottom of this.
We left messages at the other firms to find out what their mandatory retirement policies were to get some context on the age issue but so far we haven’t heard anything back. We’ll update you with those if we hear back from anyone.
It’ll be interesting to see how this shakes out since we’re pretty confident that their is no document anywhere at 300 Madison that says Schuler and Murphy were just too old to become partners. If we were to take a wild-ass guess, we’d say that the firm will point to performance reviews, etc. to rationalize the snub even if these guys were rainmakers.