Two former salaried employees have filed a John Deere lawsuit alleging the company overhauled its performance review system to reduce or deny severance for long-tenured staff. Deere has asked a court to throw out the case.
According to court filings, both plaintiffs worked for the machinery maker for more than 20 years and each received the first negative performance review of their careers. The complaint says both were given the same choice: accept three months of severance immediately, or enter a 60-day performance improvement period with no severance if they were let go at the end.
One plaintiff, Anthony Catalfano, is credited with helping Deere secure two patents and had received company awards, the suit states. A negative review in November 2025 triggered the ultimatum, and he opted to take the three-month severance, according to the filing.
John Deere lawsuit cites revised ratings policies
The complaint alleges Deere changed its performance review policies between 2024 and 2025. The new approach required that at least 10 percent of employees receive a “performance needs improvement” rating, and removed certain categories, which the plaintiffs say made low ratings easier to assign.
The filing also quotes statements attributed to various Human Resources managers suggesting the new ratings system makes it easier to terminate employees. The machinery maker has long been a presence at major farm shows, alongside updates from agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The ultimatum described in the suit allegedly conflicts with severance plan documents provided to employees. Those materials promise half a month of pay for every year of service, up to 12 months.
The plaintiffs argue Deere is obligated under federal law to follow that plan and cannot change its terms without proper notice. They also point to broader industry changes affecting equipment makers and farm operations, including developments highlighted when USDA unveils tech and policy moves at Farm Progress Show.
The plaintiffs are seeking class action status, asserting that more than 80 people were either offered inadequate severance or denied severance following a performance monitoring period.
Company seeks dismissal of claims
In its motion to dismiss, Deere argues the severance plan does not apply to the two former employees because their departures were tied to performance. The company also contends the plan is not governed by the federal statute cited in the lawsuit.
Deere further says Catalfano signed a release of claims when he accepted three months of severance, which the company argues bars him from suing. The court has not yet ruled on Deere’s request to dismiss the case.
About a month after the lawsuit was filed, Deere’s chief legal officer received more than 6 million dollars in severance, according to local reporting. That payment required releasing all claims, agreeing not to work for a competitor, and maintaining confidentiality of trade secrets, terms that are common in executive agreements described by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.