You missed where I discussed trying to advance above. I have tried to do so as an engineer.
On the other hand, it appears that being at the top level of the engineering track, with no interest in moving into management, was just fine with the OP’s employer for the first 17 of those 19 years. IME, it’s not uncommon for companies to be OK with employees remaining “topped out” in their corporate hierarchy, when they are serving in a technical role.
It’s possible that the employer has changed its POV on things in the past few years, and is now of more of an “up or out” sort of place.
I’m boarding a flight home now, buried my mother yesterday. Replies will be delayed.
Will be holding you and yours in the light 
. My condolences.
That’s not what you said. You said you don’t want management and you can’t be the “Principal Scientist” for reasons. You were “bought out” and brought in at some special level many years ago. Things like that happen in M&A and they tend to have a practical expiration date, eventually you’re expected to fall in line with the rest of the corporate hierarchy. If you’ve been unwilling to adapt this seems like the expected outcome.
This is a huge red flag for me. Product management makes the calls on what features are prioritized. Customers don’t dictate roadmaps and neither do engineers. If an engineer is not aligned with the company’s chosen course and grouses about their pet project (or worse, spends time on it) that’s a massive problem for management.
You also have indicated that you have gone over your managers head multiple times to the “big boss”. That’s never a good thing. The big boss doesn’t have time for bullshit. While having a revolving door of managers is never helpful, if those managers weren’t creating a series of complaints from anyone else…the big boss is going to identify the common element there. Perhaps that’s unfair, but as someone seeing only a narrow view of the situation (like the big boss usually) that’s what it looks and feels like for people on the receiving end of the complaints. Remember, the big boss probably chose that person for that management position. And probably had to choose them because you told them one way or another that you didn’t want the job. You’re basically asking them to admit they fucked up, over and over again. People being people, they don’t react well to being told that.
That was my read - and consistent with my experience. Hell, in most shops, you NEED a significant percentage of folk who are just cranking out the work. Few work environments function well if EVERYONE sees themself as a superstar.
OP impresses me as describing the typical management BS situation I which mgmt defines and assigns what is/isn’t high quality work. When - for whatever reason - they wish to, they can ding you by imply saying, “That wasn’t really complex/challenging/etc.” Can be very difficult to challenge.
OP also describes the situation I have encountered/heard of, in which the employee’s performance is unchanged, and the only new factor is a new direct supervisor. Now maybe this new supervisor sees a shortcoming that no one previously saw. Or maybe the new guy is the problem. But if that is the case, the higher-ups often want to defend their recent hire/promotion of that person.
Admittedly, OP conveys some sense of just wanting to finish up the string. Not uncommon in someone nearing 60. I’m in the same position myself. That’s why I suggested he reframe his goals to just avoiding being shitcanned, and keeping those paychecks going until he/she decides all their ducks are in a row for retirement. So long as OP keeps doing similar quality/quantity work as they have in past, their past medical leave and age could actually work in their favor. Most employers aren’t eager to defend themselves against a wrongful discharge action.
Not in the tech world. The Individual Contributor (IC) path is hugely important for just about any sophisticated technical firm, which I would expect to be the case where the OP works, based on the description. Hell, one of the highest ranking people at Google doesn’t really have an interest in being in management, but he makes more money (and is quite frankly considered more important) than 99.99% of his coworkers. Most of my best data scientists, database developers, and ML engineers have little desire for management, but they’re certainly not going to be shuttled out the door for it. Instead, they’ll keep getting more and more money as long as they are willing to stick around. They are also highly valued for their opinions and are often brought into high level strategy meetings.
Additionally, age discrimination is a thing and happens quite frequently, including once to myself. I was paid quite handsomely to agree to not pursue action against them. I also happen to have a good relationship with many tech recruiters and the number of clients that request certain age ranges, genders, or even races is mind-boggling. When I ask why they put up with that shit, the answer is almost always some form of “because we want to stay in business.”
This. There might be an expectation that as a principal engineer, the OP would also be involved in some non-engineering business activities like interviewing, mentoring, thought leadership, even some sales, etc.
Definitely agree on the age discrimination thing. But sometimes it works the other way. My BIL is a software developer, and at age 67, I don’t think he will ever retire. And from what I can understand of what he says, his company seems in no hurry for him to go anywhere.
I think he has some considerable expertise as to obsolete (legacy?) stuff. And with the majority of folk being MUCH younger and offshore, they seem to appreciate the perspective a token old white guy brings.
Maybe, maybe not. We don’t know how mature or sophisticated the company’s performance review process was for those previous years. Presumably if the employee is new at a top-level pay grade they will not expect any change in that for quite a long time. If they haven’t been formally conducting or tracking performance reviews in that time they may have little context on this employees performance and expectations over that time. This situation isn’t great, but it’s also not compelling evidence of what the company’s previous policy or position was. In any case, the previous assessment doesn’t really matter. Job requirements change, goals evolve, employees are expected to grow in their skills even if their role remains the same.
While it’s true that MOST companies require a large percentage of their workforce to be effectively stagnant in the position just to stay in business, this isn’t how performance reviews and HR systems are structured. Perhaps that’s a misalignment of priorities but it’s a fact. If new management comes in and decides they need to get a handle on some of their employee’s development, the criteria of the old management isn’t really relevant. As a really rudimentary example, if you’re the worlds greatest C# developer and Sybase DBA and the company rebuilds on Ruby and MongoDB your previous performance becomes a lot less relevant.
And let’s face it, being too expensive is not the same thing as age discrimination. If you’re still doing the same thing you were doing 19 years ago…you’re probably really replaceable. As you get those 5% annual bumps and stock grants the company is likely going to be asking for more too. It’s not a union shop, standing still and getting raises and bonuses really don’t go hand in hand.
If the company truly created a special tier for him at the very top of their IC tree and he’s stayed there for 19 years, I think it’s a safe bet that he’s no longer markedly better than all the ICs that are a step down from him with 10-15 years tenure. They almost certainly have high performers that meet or exceed him and they are feeling pressure to give them a bump because of the position he’s tenured into. That’s not tenable. Sadly, you’re not really entitled to keeping a elevated position indefinitely if you’re not constantly distinguishing yourself. A demotion may in fact be the appropriate action here even if it’s a tough pill to swallow.
I’m not sure that works the other way so much as that’s how it should work. Age is not supposed to be a factor in hiring, promoting, nor firing. It absolutely does come into play, and quite frequently, but it’s not supposed to.
I didn’t read all the responses, but having dealt with major issues that involved HR folks, I know that going in there cold is usually a bad idea. You are better off thoroughly documenting anything you see as harassment, and being very specific about it: dates, times, places, peoples’ names, etc. I would also have someone else in the room whenever your manager gives you a performance review. Possibly even record it. Sometimes, just the actions that you are taking will warn off someone who is trying to either work up a termination case or trying to make you resign for no good reason. Also, if a supervisor begins assigning your work to someone else and taking away your responsibilities in order to get you to resign, that can be seen as constructive termination to a labor lawyer.
Not true if you’re not on a management track. I made it very clear for my entire career that I never wanted to be a manager. For the last several years before I retired I was at a level that was equivalent of a Director in terms of salary and who was considered a peer. There was one higher level that was equivalent to a VP but you effectively needed a PhD for that. For a brief while I had a Manager (as in the level below Director) as my boss and I made more than he did. When I became senior technical staff, the bosses gave me projects to manage and other stuff to run and I did it how I saw fit.
I agree that HR shouldn’t be involved unless you know and trust them very well. A heart to heart with the boss could be a better approach but that’s also highly dependent on their personality.
If the evaluation that you had a copy of said something like “Old guys like squeegee are a drain on the company” then yeah. Otherwise, age discrimination is impossible to prove on a individual basis.
HR will help an employee if the danger is a giant discrimination lawsuit or similar, or really bad press. Not to help the employee- but to protect the company.
Never go over your bosses head.
You have this wrong. We have integrated teams of eng + QE + product managers + designers, and our team had prioritized what you called my ‘pet project’ so I moved it forward with all speed. Then we got a ‘tell’ (not an ask) from another team to do (what I and others thought was) frivolous stuff our team (not just me) didn’t think was important and had to drop our top priority for several months. My interests were the team’s interests.
I said no such thing. I’m sought out routinely by Big Boss on things. The only ‘over head’ thing was when I mentioned my frustrations with my manager’s communication style, in the course of communication I was supposed to be having with BB. And I was extremely hesitant to broach it at all and waited for months before doing so. I don’t bitch all over the company about stuff, and I consider that unprofessional but felt I had little choice in this instance.
I sent you a PM as your company sounds a lot my company.
I would also suggest you spend the $500 and talk to a real lawyer with experience in Silicon Valley
Thanks, BippityBoppityBoo. 
This was the anniversary of her passing so we placed her ashes* next to her husband’s since we’d never had a chance until now.
*I said ‘buried’ above for shorthand. Is there a single word for placing ashes?
And you make a very good point. I started this thread to see if anyone thought otherwise. I really do want to tough it out, do good work, get paid, and in the end retire.
So the EEOC has confirmation bias?
That’s quite the creative misrepresentation of what I said.