I left mega-corp for a new job a few weeks ago. The correspondence I get from my former employer refers to me as a “retiree” (I’m in my 50s but am not retired). Similarly, my husband, who was laid off from them a few months ago, is also referred to as a “retiree” although he is not retired.
Why do they do this? Is there some legal ramification? Or is it just lazy nomenclature?
Are you or your husband receiving any compensation from the companies such as taking early retirement?
I’ve been considered a retiree from the US military since 1997 and receive compensation for it. However I’m still working 40+ hours a week. I’m also considered a retiree from a part time job teaching at a local college even though I haven’t started receiving a retirement check from that job yet. I will when I turn 60 YO next year.
Did you withdraw or move any retirement funds when you left?
My guess is that anyone who is listed as a former vested employee in the company retirement plan is a “retiree”.
Again, just my guess.
We did not have a retirement plan. We just had 401Ks and we transferred that out to another account.
Did you have any other benefits that vested as a result of your tenure?
Nothing else vested.
At my company, if you separate service for any reason, and a combination of your age and years in service adds up to a certain number, you are considered a retiree, which means you may continue to participate in some benefits, although the company no longer covers the cost of some of them.
No, as far as I can tell I’m not eligible for any special benefits due to my age. There’s just the usual COBRA. Maybe I missed something but that’s my impression.
If there’s any chance at all that you’re replicants, I’d advise going into hiding. 
Jargon, basically.
First point: I can retire from all employment, in which case I consider myself “retired”. Or I can retire from a particular employment, and take up another one. In the latter case I may not consider myself “retired” in general terms, even though I am in fact retired from my first employment.
Second point: In English, the -ee suffix indicates not a subject, but an object; not someone who does something, but someone who has something done to them. So, the lessee does not let property; he has property let to him. The payee does not pay money; he has money paid to him. The legatee does not leave property; he has property left to him. The trustee does not trust people; he is himself trusted. And so forth.
So, the retiree is not someone who has retired; he is someone who has been retired. In other words, to call someone a retiree is to look at him from the perspective of his former employer. As far as your employer is concerned, you are a retiree if you have retired from his employment. He neither knows nor cares, typically, whether you have entered into another employment, or now
consider yourself to be retired in the more general sense. Hence your employer, and the people who administer his retirement benefits plan, will generally call you a retiree regardless of whether you have taken up another employment; you’re retired from his employment, and that’s all that’s relevant to him.
(And, of course, “retired” can cover all forms of withdrawal from an employment, though it is usually only used in the context of withdrawal after long service.)
Hmmm, ok, yes I understand that linguistically in the broad sense “retiree” has that meaning. But I have not heard it used that way in this context for all forms of separation. Anyhow that’s the best explanation thus far!