1. Introduction

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sent a Final Determination Letter in 2021 explicitly declaring that Raytheon’s hiring advertisements and practices violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The legal complaint, Goldstein v. RTX Corporation, cites this determination as unequivocal proof that Raytheon systematically excluded older workers—those 40 and above—from applying for or fairly competing for numerous salaried positions, even after regulators warned them. Raytheon allegedly continued to post “Recent Graduate Positions” requiring graduation within a year or two or no more than 12 to 24 months of relevant work experience, blatantly preventing older, experienced workers from being hired.

Raytheon, one of the world’s largest aerospace and defense conglomerates, leveraged targeted language—such as “New Grad,” “Recent Grad,” or “New College Graduate”—in both internal and external job listings. Such postings allegedly forced older applicants into a position where it was futile to even apply, because Raytheon’s own “Basic Qualifications” disqualified them for lacking the one factor these ads most prized: recency of college graduation.

The legal complaint goes on to highlight that Raytheon employs over 185,000 people worldwide, generating annual revenues around $69 billion in 2023 alone. In an era when the workforce is rapidly aging and skilled labor is at a premium (especially in the highly specialized fields of aerospace and defense), these allegations of systematic age discrimination challenge a widely held assumption about corporate social responsibility. If proven true, the allegations depict a company that may have sacrificed many qualified, older professionals at the altar of corporate profit and speed of onboarding.

Yet this is not an isolated story about a single job seeker named Mark Goldstein or a single large corporation. The complaint underscores how age discrimination practices might be far more prevalent than typical in a world shaped by neoliberal capitalism and the relentless pursuit of cost optimization. Throughout the legal filing, the plaintiff’s attorneys argue that Raytheon’s approach was no accident: it was allegedly systemic, deliberate, and anchored by the company’s internal push to hire cheap, younger labor that can be molded without the “baggage” of seasoned experience or higher salary demands.

This article investigates the allegations in detail, connecting them to broader themes of wealth disparity, corporate corruption, and the continuing economic fallout when older Americans are sidelined from the workforce. We will also examine how regulators such as the EEOC factor into this story, the scope of harm done to older professionals, and the typical corporate public relations maneuvers used when companies stand accused of wrongdoing. Finally, we will reflect on whether real change can be expected from large corporations whose business model and shareholder pressures reward short-term financial gain above all else.

The investigation unfolds in eight sections. We begin by showcasing the central allegations in the complaint—both the factual claims and their deeper moral and economic ramifications. Then we trace Raytheon’s corporate intent, the “playbook” for evading or minimizing accountability, the corporate profit equation behind such misdeeds, and the system failures that might embolden such conduct. We then explore how this “pattern of predation” is, arguably, a built-in feature of modern corporate capitalism rather than a “bug,” and we close by considering the PR playbook and the power imbalance between older job seekers and one of the largest defense contractors in the world.

The underlying question is simple yet profound: How could an iconic company—supplier of advanced technology to government and commercial clients, overseer of billions in defense contracts—allegedly ignore explicit EEOC findings that its hiring policies were unlawful? Is such behavior simply the outgrowth of a system that financially incentivizes corporate greed and punishes more conscientious approaches? We take a deep dive below.

---

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

The publicly available complaint draws a vivid portrait of corporate intent that, in the plaintiff’s view, crosses the line into outright discrimination. According to the filing, Plaintiff Mark Goldstein—himself a 67-year-old with decades of experience in cybersecurity, technology, project management, and federal contracting—repeatedly applied to Raytheon positions labeled “New Grad” or “Recent College Graduate.” Each time, he was either immediately rejected or ignored. The same happened to countless other older applicants, the complaint contends, because Raytheon’s job postings explicitly required recent graduation dates or no more than 12 or 24 months of relevant work experience.

“Many Raytheon job ads use targeted phrases such as ‘recent college graduate,’ ‘new college graduate,’ ‘new graduate,’ or ‘recent graduate’ in the position’s title and/or job description and qualifications to disqualify older applicants.”
(Quoted/Paraphrased from the complaint)

Why do such phrases matter? In the eyes of the ADEA and parallel state laws—such as the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act—phrasing that implies “recent graduate” or a strict experience limit is essentially an age proxy. The logic is straightforward: The vast majority of recent graduates are under age 40, and so requiring recency of graduation effectively screens out older applicants. The complaint underscores that 95% of college graduates are under 40, meaning that these so-called “basic qualifications” or “preferred qualifications” were not neutral at all—they severely limited who could be considered for these jobs.

Equally revealing is the complaint’s depiction of an intentional corporate strategy. Raytheon allegedly not only posted discriminatory language but also maintained automated systems to collect the month and year of graduation from every applicant, possibly enabling it to filter out or summarily reject older individuals. Despite ongoing labor shortages, and ironically while Raytheon was complaining in its investor calls and SEC filings about difficulties in attracting talent, the company (as alleged) chose to pass over older candidates with the proven skills it claimed were in short supply.

From a broader vantage, these charges land at the intersection of corporate ethics, corporate accountability, and the real economic fallout that can be unleashed when entire segments of the population are systematically excluded from good-paying jobs. The “intent” described in the complaint, if proved in court, goes well beyond a negligent slip of language. Instead, it suggests a deliberate preference: to fill open positions with younger workers, presumably to manage salary costs and to maintain what Raytheon brags about as a “youthful pipeline.”

Such an approach resonates with common patterns under neoliberal capitalism, where cost considerations, speed, and the desire to shape a “modern brand image” often overshadow the potential that experienced professionals can bring. By weeding out older candidates at the earliest stage, the company ensures minimal overhead from wages that might be demanded by a seasoned expert. The complaint points out that even an obvious solution—simply letting older workers in the door to compete—was effectively cast aside. Instead, the alleged corporate decision-makers folded older workers into a category deemed “unqualified” by virtue of date-of-graduation criteria alone.

This alleged corporate intent is further illuminated by how Raytheon’s leadership touted the success of these “early career hires” to the financial press. By 2023, about 25% of all new hires at Raytheon were new or recent college graduates. The complaint emphasizes that many of these roles, especially at the entry and mid-level tiers, were effectively never made available to those who were out of college for more than a couple of years—a policy that, by design, locks out older applicants.

In sum, the legal document tries to expose a pattern: Raytheon had abundant reason to know its approach was illegal. The EEOC told them so in no uncertain terms: The complaint quotes the agency’s letter, stating that Raytheon’s language violated the ADEA’s prohibition on publications that “indicate a hiring preference for applicants who are not in the protected age group.” Yet, says the complaint, the practice persisted—seemingly justified by a desire to cultivate an age-homogeneous workforce.

When a corporation knowingly continued a discriminatory practice in defiance of regulatory warnings, questions about corporate ethics and corporate corruption are inevitable. Age discrimination might not initially evoke the same immediate imagery as industrial accidents or corporate pollution, yet the complaint draws parallels in the sense that an entire class of people—older applicants—have had their livelihoods threatened. For those in midlife or near retirement, a stable job with a major employer can be the difference between living comfortably or spiraling into precariousness. If proven, the company’s alleged conduct triggers serious questions about how that brand of corporate greed feeds into a broader pattern of structural inequality.

---

3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It

The complaint details a series of alleged tactics that effectively formed a “playbook,” enabling Raytheon to systematically keep older applicants out while mitigating potential backlash or detection. Although Raytheon is hardly the first corporation to face class action allegations for discriminatory hiring, the specificity of these claims provides a revealing look into the mechanics of potential corporate wrongdoing.

3.1 Crafting the Job Advertisements

Raytheon’s first line of defense was deceptively simple: write job postings whose “Basic Qualifications” already exclude older workers. Advertisements labeled “New Grad” or “Recent College Graduate” signaled a preference to job seekers that if you’ve been out of school for more than a year or two, you’re wasting your time. For instance, the complaint highlights postings that literally said: “Great opportunity for current seniors in college or recent college graduates. If you are not a current college senior, or a recent college graduate, please visit our other opportunities…”

This message alone can deter older workers from even applying. Many older professionals read such ads and concluded that applying was futile. The complaint describes how Mark Goldstein, again and again, would see a position that matched his skillset, only to find that the official job requirements demanded no more than 12 months of professional experience or a graduation date within the past 18 months.

3.2 Collecting Data to Flag Age

The second tactic alleged is the collection of graduation dates and transcripts. By forcing applicants to submit month/year of graduation, Raytheon created a data point that generally reveals approximate age. As the complaint states, “older workers who did not meet the requirement of having recently graduated… were simply too old to qualify.” The complaint also outlines how the company’s applicant tracking systems effectively facilitated automatic or near-automatic rejections. One can easily imagine an HR software script that says: If ‘year of graduation’ <= [current year minus 2], mark applicant as “does not meet Basic Qualifications.”

Even if not automated, the complaint describes how a human screener would glean a candidate’s age from their listed graduation date. The result: older workers (who might have far more relevant experience) never advanced to an actual interview.

3.3 Maintaining a Thin Pretense

To the outside world, especially prospective investors, Raytheon framed these postings as part of a broader youth initiative. The complaint shows how Raytheon apparently boasted about building a “youthful talent pipeline,” championing the desire to bring in new graduates who might be “freshly minted” in modern technical skills. Historically, many corporations adopt this same approach, calling it “early career development” or “campus hiring.”

Critics might argue that robust campus hiring on its own is not illegal—unless it becomes a blanket barrier shutting out older applicants. The complaint contends that Raytheon’s approach crossed that line, because it was not just part of a diversity of recruiting streams but rather a broad gating mechanism for a large swath of entry- and mid-level jobs. Indeed, the complaint states that 25% of new hires were restricted to those under the “recent grad” category, producing a large pipeline of younger employees. The effect on older prospective candidates—and the complaint enumerates many who felt deterred—was massive.

3.4 Non-Compliance with EEOC Findings

One of the most striking allegations is that Raytheon persisted in these practices even after the EEOC in 2021 found them to be in violation of the ADEA. Typically, when a federal agency determines that your job postings violate anti-discrimination law, a well-advised company will revise those postings and remove suspect language to avoid further liability or negative public relations. Raytheon did tinker with the language in some postings, dropping explicit references to “recent grads.” The net effect changed little: the “Basic Qualifications” still included maximum experience thresholds, such as “Bachelor’s degree and no more than 12 months of relevant work experience.” That requirement alone, the plaintiff contends, accomplishes the same age-limiting purpose.

In reading the legal complaint, one is left with the impression that Raytheon effectively doubled down on a “youthful pipeline” strategy, presumably believing it would face minimal regulatory or legal blowback. This scenario is reminiscent of a broader trend, in which large corporations sometimes calculate that the immediate cost-savings or “cultural benefits” of a younger workforce overshadow the potential legal consequences they might pay down the road.

3.5 “Strategic” Use of Labor Shortage Narratives

On multiple occasions, Raytheon publicly lamented labor shortages in their filings and earnings calls, a phenomenon that has also become common across other high-tech industries. The complaint seizes on this contradiction: if you truly are short on skilled technical staff, why limit your pipeline to only those who graduated college in the past two years? One possibility is the drive for lower wages. Another is the corporate preference for shaping an “energetic” workforce whose average age is well under 40.

From an economic fallout perspective, the net effect—if proven—would be to push older workers out of stable, lucrative engineering and technical roles, fueling the risk of wealth disparity as fewer older Americans can maintain or advance in their careers. The complaint’s reference to Mark Goldstein underscores this tension: He boasted 40 years of relevant work, high-level certifications in cybersecurity, and once held a federal government security clearance. Yet by Raytheon’s policy, a brand-new college grad with 12 months of experience would be considered “more qualified.”

In short, the “playbook” the complaint describes is not especially complicated. It rests on a few core steps: craft the right wording in job ads, gather data that flags older applicants, automatically exclude them, keep them out of the interview pipeline, and dismiss or ignore the concerns once raised. If a formal legal challenge arises, perhaps a settlement can be reached or the language can be discreetly “adjusted” while preserving the same discriminatory effect. For critics of unbridled neoliberal capitalism, this is a classic script, repeated in multiple contexts—environmental compliance, consumer safety, or health regulations—though here it focuses on corporations’ dangers to public welfare in the sense of excluding older workers from gainful employment. The result is a deepening of wealth disparity and a sabotage of one of the largest job-seeking demographics in America.

---

4. The Corporate Profit Equation

Why would a massive defense conglomerate knowingly risk running afoul of anti-discrimination laws? The complaint suggests that profit is the animating principle. In the broader context of corporate ethics, the tension between short-term shareholder returns and robust compliance with the spirit of antidiscrimination policies is well known.

4.1 Cost Savings on Salaries

One straightforward explanation is that younger workers generally command lower wages, fewer benefits, and have less power to negotiate. The impetus to sustain a wide margin of profitability, especially when operating in a labor-intensive sector, can be acute. In fields like engineering, job experience translates into higher salary demands. By funneling a substantial portion of hires toward “recent grads,” Raytheon might have been able to keep average wages down, enhance immediate cost savings, and thus pad its bottom line. That short-term advantage typically appeals to boards of directors and institutional investors.

Meanwhile, older workers—many of whom may have families and obligations—are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as more expensive. They often have more experience, might expect better health coverage or higher pay, and are generally in a stronger position to detect questionable corporate practices. Thus, from a purely corporate greed standpoint, older employees can appear less “cost-effective.” This, the complaint posits, is the hidden logic behind the “New Grad” job postings.

4.2 “Cultural Fit” Underlying the Ruse

In some corporate circles, there is also the notion of “cultural fit,” which can be used (intentionally or not) to exclude certain groups. Historically, many tech firms or high-end manufacturers want “hungry” young hires with fewer external commitments, able to work long hours. The lawsuit suggests that Raytheon’s mention of “building a youthful talent pipeline” was akin to code for forging a younger workforce that would be malleable, deeply reliant on the company, and presumably less likely to question corporate directives.

Age discrimination in this sense aligns with other forms of corporate discrimination that revolve around intangible traits. If a corporation decides—explicitly or unconsciously—that older workers “won’t fit in,” it might shape job requirements to systematically exclude them. The complaint, of course, claims that Raytheon’s approach was far from subtle or unconscious—it was codified in repeated “Recent Graduate” listings that were apparently posted across multiple job boards and in multiple states.

4.3 The Shareholder-Value Mindset

Under neoliberal capitalism, maximizing shareholder value often trumps other social considerations, such as equitable labor practices or consumer advocacy. If a company’s senior leadership calculates that non-compliance with age discrimination statutes might be less costly than paying competitive wages to older, highly skilled employees, there is a strong financial incentive to break or bend the rules. The complaint thus situates Raytheon’s behavior in a context where corporate accountability frequently yields to the perceived imperative of delivering quarterly returns. Indeed, the risk of class-action suits or regulatory fines is often weighed against these perceived short-term labor savings.

4.4 Overlooked Human Capital

Systematically filtering out older workers results in intangible costs that might not appear in the immediate financial statements: lost institutional knowledge, weaker mentorship structures, and the potential for reputational harm. The lawsuit references the “extensive experience” older professionals like Mark Goldstein can bring, especially in the defense and cybersecurity sectors, which are complex and require a certain level of specialized knowledge or security clearances. But the complaint describes how Raytheon’s short-term calculus, geared toward having an inexpensive, brand-loyal workforce, overshadowed the potential of harnessing that expertise.

Moreover, the complaint underscores the irony that Raytheon was struggling to find qualified personnel at the same time it was actively shutting out entire cohorts of older, qualified applicants. It is precisely that gap—between the company’s public stance (bemoaning labor shortages) and its practice (excluding older workers)—that the lawsuit views as revealing the real financial rationale beneath the surface.

4.5 Quantifying Damages

While the complaint does not compute a precise sum in alleged damages, it points to a wide scope. The potential class includes older workers across the United States who applied—or who might have applied but were deterred—from 2018 onward. If proven, this means that tens of thousands of older applicants could have missed out on high-paying roles, each instance representing a lost opportunity for stable employment, pay, and benefits in the twilight of one’s career.

From a corporate social responsibility perspective, the allegations depict a short-sighted model. Rather than capitalizing on the skill sets of older individuals, Raytheon stands accused of applying a blunt, exclusionary policy for the sake of “quarterly numbers.” If the courts conclude these allegations hold water, Raytheon may face significant financial penalties—not to mention the intangible blow to its reputation.

But does that necessarily prompt real change? Many critics suspect that large corporations simply factor in the cost of potential age-discrimination settlements as another line item. This fosters a sense of cynicism among older job seekers, who watch as major companies perpetuate wealth disparity by funneling job opportunities disproportionately to younger individuals. The complaint, if validated, would be a powerful example of how corporate greed can override legitimate hiring of skilled labor, ironically harming the very society these companies are supposed to serve through advanced technologies and defense solutions.

---

5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing

Raytheon did receive a formal notice from the EEOC. The complaint is adamant that, in March 2021, the federal agency found that Raytheon’s job advertisements contained language that violated the ADEA. By itself, that might sound like a strong regulatory pushback. But, as alleged, Raytheon seemingly continued business as usual. So how can we reconcile these facts? Why did that not spur an immediate overhaul or a robust enforcement action?

5.1 The EEOC’s Limited Powers and Case Backlogs

For decades, the EEOC has faced chronic underfunding and staff shortages. The federal government’s budgeting constraints mean that the Commission cannot pursue every violation of civil rights laws with equal vigor. The complaint references the existence of a “tolling agreement” between Mr. Goldstein and Raytheon, which effectively put the case on hold for a period. Meanwhile, the EEOC’s final determination letter did not instantly spawn a public lawsuit or a massive fine. Instead, it left the door open for private action or potential settlement.

Here we can see a typical example of regulatory capture or at least regulatory impotence within a system where large corporations can negotiate or delay enforcement. While the EEOC is not usually “captured” in the classic sense that might apply to environmental or financial regulatory agencies, it remains an agency with finite resources relative to the scale of corporate America. As a result, it is not surprising that a giant defense contractor might treat an EEOC determination as an advisory complication to be navigated rather than an existential threat.

5.2 The Role of State Regulators

The complaint also points to potential violations of state-level anti-discrimination laws, specifically the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act and the Virginia Human Rights Act. Yet, the story is similar: these states have civil rights commissions or offices that can only do so much. They often rely heavily on private attorneys to handle litigation, while the state’s role might be to investigate or attempt to mediate. Corporations with deep pockets can prolong negotiations, taking advantage of labyrinthine procedures. Many older job applicants, lacking robust legal counsel, simply do not challenge discriminatory postings.

5.3 Loopholes and Technicalities

Raytheon’s shift from explicit references to “recent grads” to “Bachelor’s degree and no more than 12 months prior experience” signals a strategy to subvert regulators. So long as the job ad no longer literally said “we’re looking for young people,” Raytheon’s in-house counsel might argue that the new language is “facially neutral.” Indeed, the difference in wording might have been enough to sow confusion or hamper immediate regulatory scrutiny. In practice, both versions yield the same outcome: older applicants are disqualified by design.

5.4 Corporate Legal Firewalls

As a $69-billion global titan, Raytheon employs an army of attorneys who can file motions, challenge class certifications, and mount vigorous defenses. Critics say that the threat of drawn-out litigation is itself a deterrent to robust regulation: governments and private individuals must weigh the cost of battling a well-funded adversary. Meanwhile, the complaint argues, Raytheon can continue to shape its workforce demographics as it sees fit.

In a broader historical context, big corporate players in pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, or tech have often turned to similar legal and lobbying strategies to mitigate the costs of regulatory oversight. In the end, profits come first; the cost of potentially illegal or unethical conduct can be rationalized if the possible penalties appear to be smaller than the gains.

5.5 Legislative Gaps and Public Apathy

Another factor in “why regulators did nothing” can be traced to political and social climates. Age discrimination, while rampant, sometimes receives less attention than other forms of bias. Some might even rationalize it with stereotypes such as “tech is a young person’s game,” ignoring how older individuals may still provide immense contributions. Lacking broader public pressure, the impetus for regulators to intervene forcibly is diluted.

Moreover, age discrimination laws have historically been more complicated than race or sex discrimination laws. The “reasonable factor other than age” defense built into the ADEA can embolden corporations to claim that recency of graduation is a business necessity for “new” or “entry-level” positions. The complaint asserts that there is no legitimate business reason to exclude older, qualified professionals from those same entry-level roles, but apparently, the company has yet to be forced into changing course.

Thus, the complaint offers a real-life example of how systemic failures—resource constraints, legal complexities, political priorities—can combine to let a major corporation continue to practice age discrimination. The case’s very existence, however, indicates that “doing nothing” eventually gave way to private litigation that might prove costlier for the company if it loses. At the same time, critics wonder: Will these allegations lead to a sweeping reexamination of corporate hiring practices across the defense industry and beyond? Or will it remain a footnote in a system predisposed to favor well-funded corporate defendants?

---

6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

To interpret these allegations purely as an isolated misstep by Raytheon misses the bigger picture. The complaint’s central premise is that the company’s approach to hiring older applicants did not happen by chance or by the negligence of a few HR employees. Rather, it was presumably a broad corporate decision woven into standard operating procedure, consistent with a pattern of predation that thrives under the rules of neoliberal capitalism.

6.1 Neoliberal Capitalism’s Drive to Hyper-Efficiency

Under the modern economic paradigm, corporations are often lauded for “lean” processes and “efficiency.” In practice, these terms can serve as euphemisms for ruthlessly eliminating anything that does not directly enhance short-term profits. Older workers, who might require higher salaries or flexible work arrangements, can be categorized as “inefficient.” That’s not to say every corporation engages in such biases, but the complaint contends that Raytheon’s decisions can be interpreted as a near-textbook example of applying an extreme cost-benefit analysis to staffing.

6.2 The Systemic Exclusion of Vulnerable Groups

Age discrimination in white-collar and technical fields is often overshadowed in the public consciousness by other forms of discrimination. Yet it remains a deeply structural problem. The complaint describes how older workers were “filtered out” with the same systematic tools that so many corporations now employ—digital screening, algorithmic filters, and coded job postings. Viewed collectively, these methods form a powerful gatekeeping mechanism, ensuring that only certain demographics pass through.

The lawsuit’s focus on older workers resonates with the broader theme of corporate wrongdoing: the same logic that fosters pollution of local communities or exploitation of low-wage labor in manufacturing can drive a firm to ignore the intangible costs of wealth disparity. By pushing older workers aside, the corporation invests only in younger, cheaper labor, leaving older professionals in a precarious state. As the complaint makes clear, this type of tactic might be extremely profitable for corporate managers in the short run.

6.3 Historical Parallels

Historically, big corporations in other industries have faced large-scale lawsuits for employing similarly “neutral” language to exclude protected groups. For instance, “physical strength tests” that systematically excluded women were justified by “business necessity,” or “zip code restrictions” that systematically excluded certain ethnic communities. Here, the complaint reveals that “recent college graduate” and “less than 24 months experience” can function just as effectively as “no applicants over 40.” Even the phrasing “New Grad” in job titles might appear innocuous, but in the charged environment of age discrimination law, it is anything but.

6.4 Broader Social Harms

Age discrimination fosters wealth disparity in a society already grappling with rising inequality. When older professionals lose out on well-paying jobs—positions that would ordinarily be steppingstones to better retirement security—the social safety net often ends up bearing the cost. Individuals too young to retire but too old to find new roles face a heightened risk of financial destitution, particularly if they must resort to short-term, lower-paying gigs.

Moreover, for consumers and taxpayers, there can be indirect fallout: an underutilized pool of experienced talent can hamper innovation and degrade the competitiveness of crucial industries like aerospace and defense. This is reminiscent of how corporate pollution might degrade the environment in the name of short-term gains, only to impose long-term social costs. Here, the social cost is the erosion of stable employment for older Americans, effectively risking a new underclass of the “involuntarily retired.”

By placing these allegations in a historical and systemic context, the complaint does more than detail a single plaintiff’s plight. It suggests that Raytheon’s approach is symptomatic of a broader phenomenon in which corporate employers rationalize discriminatory tactics as “standard business practice.” If proven, the question becomes: do these industrial behemoths simply view the occasional lawsuit as the cost of doing business, a minor chink in the armor of their global economic prowess?

---

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

The corporate approach to negative publicity often relies on standard public relations tactics that can minimize the reputational hit while simultaneously mitigating legal exposure. While the complaint does not specifically quote any Raytheon PR statements about age discrimination, it offers a general backdrop for how such controversies usually unfold. In parallel situations, major companies have historically employed several standard tactics:

1. Denial or Deflection: A standard response might be that the job postings were “misinterpreted,” that the language was never intended to exclude older workers, or that the postings in question were “isolated incidents.” The complaint directly contests such narratives by pointing to the repeated, consistent usage of “New Graduate” language across dozens (and possibly more) of positions.
2. Innocent Intent: Another PR angle is to claim that the “recent graduate” language was simply clarifying that the roles were entry-level. Indeed, many corporations might say, “We are not discriminating on age, we just want applicants who are in the early stages of their career.” Yet from a legal standpoint, the complaint 87that the effect is the same as excluding older workers from these roles, especially since many older workers would accept entry-level pay or are pivoting from another field—the law does not allow an employer to assume they will not be interested or qualified.
3. Token Adjustments: One part of the complaint reveals how Raytheon, post-EEOC determination, updated some job listings to remove explicit references to “recent grads” but then swapped in a new requirement that applicants hold a “Bachelor’s degree and 12 months or less of relevant work experience.” This is an example of the “small fix” that, in practice, keeps the original dynamic intact. In PR-speak, the company can say it “responded to the regulator’s concerns” without conceding much ground in substance.
4. Corporate Social Responsibility Messaging: Larger firms, especially in the defense sector, emphasize philanthropic endeavors, diversity initiatives (usually focusing on race or gender), and educational scholarships. This can help build an overall brand image that might overshadow an age-discrimination lawsuit. While these efforts may be beneficial in other domains, the complaint contends that they do not address the core discrimination allegations.
5. Financial Settlements and NDAs: Historically, many discrimination cases end in settlements with confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements, which hamper public awareness. Plaintiffs often accept such terms to ensure a guaranteed resolution. Companies thus avoid a protracted trial and the resulting negative publicity. The complaint signals that tens of thousands of older workers may have been deterred or denied opportunities at Raytheon, so if the suit gains traction, one potential outcome could be a settlement that includes changes to HR policies and monetary redress.

While we do not yet know how Raytheon will respond to the specific allegations, the complaint’s unambiguous references to continuing discriminatory postings through at least 2023 or 2024 suggests that the usual “fixes” may not have been fully implemented. If the case moves forward, it may well put a spotlight on the gap between Raytheon’s public branding as a top-tier aerospace innovator and the alleged moral and corporate ethics failings in ignoring older applicants.

For consumers who follow corporate accountability issues, such PR tactics can be deeply frustrating. They appear to offer superficial remediation while the underlying problem—systematic exclusion—remains largely in place. Yet in a marketplace shaped by neoliberal capitalism, with minimal external pressure, a large corporation’s well-polished statements often suffice to keep them in good standing with many stakeholders. Whether or not that pattern holds here may depend on how the legal process, the media, and the public ultimately react.

---

8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

At its core, Goldstein v. RTX Corporation speaks to a larger tension: corporate power in the United States is immense, and even explicit regulatory findings of wrongdoing can be insufficient to prompt swift change. Meanwhile, public interest demands that older workers not be consigned to the scrap heap for the “crime” of graduating from college decades ago.

8.1 The Stakes for Older Workers

Older workers face numerous hurdles in the current job market—stereotypes about “lack of tech skills,” assumptions about their higher costs, and policies that quietly push them away. As argued in the complaint, losing out on a well-paying defense sector job is not just an individual blow but often one that can upend entire families, especially for those nearing retirement age or with specialized skill sets. Social justice advocates warn that, when a large employer like Raytheon systematically excludes older applicants, local communities also suffer. Tax bases may shrink, local economies may lose the stabilizing influence of mid-career professionals with disposable income, and the national workforce sees a brain drain of talent.

8.2 The Corporate Calculus and Shareholder Pressures

Critics often remark that no real cultural shift occurs at a corporate giant unless it aligns with shareholder interests. If Raytheon’s leadership—and indeed many other companies—see the direct financial upside in continuing or replicating these hiring policies, they may cling to them despite the risk of lawsuits. The defense sector, in particular, is under constant pressure to deliver high profit margins on government contracts. Even if they eventually pay a class settlement, some cynics suspect that Raytheon might simply pass part of that cost on to the government or recoup it through future negotiated contract terms.

8.3 The Neoliberal Dilemma

Under neoliberal capitalism, with its emphasis on deregulation and minimal government intervention, companies operate with substantial latitude. While the ADEA, state laws, and the EEOC’s existence are meant to uphold fairness, the complaint shows that legal frameworks alone are not always enough—particularly when up against a well-resourced legal juggernaut. The tension lies in whether the free market truly polices discriminatory policies or whether, as critics argue, the free market often reinforces them when they appear profitable.

8.4 Possible Pathways Forward

As with many discrimination lawsuits, real change often demands either a strong government-led enforcement action or a wave of public attention that threatens a corporation’s brand. If the allegations remain confined to legal filings largely unseen by the broader public, it is possible that any resolution might remain a quiet affair. Then the structural conditions that produced these policies can remain intact: the unrelenting drive toward corporate profit, at the expense of ethical hiring.

8.5 The Human Face of Discrimination

While it is tempting to focus on the massive scale—185,000 worldwide employees, $69 billion in revenues—the complaint reminds us that behind the legal jargon are real people, each with financial commitments, health concerns, and families to support. Mark Goldstein is but one example of an older, highly skilled individual who, according to the complaint, was told—explicitly or implicitly—that he was simply too old to apply for Raytheon’s positions.

From a consumers advocacy and social justice perspective, the ripple effects of such discrimination are vast. Communities that lose out on the spending power of older professionals see decreased economic vitality. Meanwhile, the intangible cost of emotional distress for those repeatedly cast aside in the job market is rarely calculable in purely financial terms.

We must question whether Raytheon will meaningfully address the structural incentive to cut corners. In the absence of robust oversight—where regulators are constrained, lawsuits can be settled quietly, and shareholders predominantly prize short-term margins—will large corporations significantly alter their approach? This question remains open. Indeed, we see it repeated across controversies involving corporate pollution, corporate corruption, or corporations’ dangers to public health: the system itself can encourage corner-cutting. The pattern of predatory or exploitative behavior, some argue, isn’t an aberration but rather a feature of the system.

---