October 26, 2009
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
New York Office
33 Whitehall Street
New York, New York 10004
Re: Age Discrimination Charge and Notice of Appearance
.......Complainants: Elsie Crowell, Eugenio Toma, Joanne Botsford, Michael Priore, Donald Botsford, John Kelly
.......Employer: Monticello Wal-Mart
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please accept this letter as a complaint of age discrimination and hostile work environment by: Elsie Crowell, formerly a Personnel Manager at Walmart Supercenter in Monticello, New York; Joanne Botsford, currently a cashier at Walmart Supercenter in Monticello, New York; Donald Botsford, formerly an overnight shift greeter at Walmart Supercenter in Monticello, New York; Eugenio Toma, currently a sales associate at Walmart Supercenter in Monticello, New York; Michael Priore, who was refused employment at Walmart Supercenter in Monticello; and John Kelly, who was refused employment at Walmart Supercenter in Monticello.
Please also accept this letter as an appearance by Cory J. Rosenbaum, Esq., of Rosenbaum Faria, LLP, on behalf of Ms. Crowell, Mrs. Botsford, Mr. Botsford, Mr. Toma, Mr. Priore, and Mr. Kelly.
Please also accept this charge as made on behalf of all other Walmart employees similarly situated.
The contact information for the employer is Walmart Supercenter, 41 Anawana Lake Road, Monticello, New York 12701.
Walmart discriminates against older people. Walmart discriminates against experienced, competent employees over forty years of age. Walmart is following a plan to reduce its older workforce and replace them with a younger work force.
Since 2005, older Walmart employees have been singled out for harsher treatment than younger Walmart employees, resulting in continuing violations of employment law and the creation of a hostile work environment. Due to Walmart's policies and procedures, Walmart management systematically targets, fires, constructively discharges, refuses to hire, and otherwise discriminates against people over forty years of age.
As a result of this pattern and practice of age discrimination, older employees have been and are denied equal employment opportunities. Walmart's practice has resulted in a disparate impact and disparate treatment of older employees, as management has knowingly and deliberately permitted a discriminatory work environment to exist and continue.
This broad group of older employees and older applicants for positions, including the above referenced individuals, have experienced and/or witnessed the following acts of age discrimination:
(1) Walmart has implemented a practice of a reduction in their work force. Several experienced, longtime older employees are continuously being terminated or forced to quit. Management has specifically been instructed to fire numerous employees "because they are old." Management systematically replaces the older employees with younger employees;
(2) Management has directed derogatory age-based comments towards older employees such as "senile," "why don't you retire," "insubordinate," "too slow," and "get that old person out of here;"
(3) According to Walmart policy, the Customer Service Manager (CSM) is required to keep a structured schedule of 15-minute breaks throughout the day for employees. Breaks are to be spread out appropriately and employees are not to work a certain amount of hours without receiving such break. However, required breaks are continuously not given to older employees, while younger employees are permitted to take unscheduled breaks without consequence. When older people are given breaks, the breaks are not spread out over the shift but, instead, the older employees' breaks are grouped at the end of the shifts making the job substantially harder for older people than it is for younger people: it is harder to work 7 hours straight and then have a break then to work 2-3 hours, have a break, work another 2-3 hours, have a break, etc.;
(4) Walmart policy requires that cashiers must meet certain speed measurements in checking out items for customers. These measurements are impractical for older workers, who are not in the same physical shape as younger workers. Accordingly, older workers are repeatedly harassed, reprimanded, and fired for failing to meet these requirements. For example, younger people can lift, scan and move heavy bags of dog food and cases of bottled water faster than older employees;
(5) Walmart policy includes a dress code for all employees, requiring that employees always dress in tan slacks with sneakers or low-heeled shoes. The dress code also states that piercings are not permitted at work. However, younger employees have been and are allowed to violate the dress code without receiving any or fewer reprimands. Older employees, on the other hand, are consistently reprimanded, ridiculed and/or fired for failing to abide by the dress code. Older people have been and continue to be reprimanded for minute violations such as wearing slightly off-colored clothing while this practice is, generally, not applied to young employees;
(6) Older employees, such as cashiers and door greeters, are repeatedly required to perform physical maintenance work outside of their job duties, including, but not limited to, washing toilets and bathrooms, cleaning windows, scrubbing floors, and lifting heavy items. When refusing to complete these tasks, which would require them to leave their job posts, the employees are reprimanded and/or fired. Younger employees, however, do not receive reprimands for refusing to do required tasks, even when they swear at management. Also, younger employees, unlike the older employees, are routinely assigned to less demeaning tasks;
(7) Walmart's absentee policy is administered differently to older and younger employees. Absences are used as a pretext for reprimanding, demoting and firing older employees, even if they are approved. Younger employees, however, are permitted to report to work late, take necessary sick days and medical leave, and use vacation time, without receiving any form of admonishment. Thus, older employees are forced to report to work even if they are sick or injured, and similarly situated younger employees are generally not terminated for using available sick and/or personal days;
(8) Older employees are subject to disproportionate amounts of "D-Day's" (Decision Day) than younger employees. Consistent with Walmart policy and procedures, a "D Day" amounts to a day off with pay during which the employee is supposed to deliberate or think about his/her conduct and ponder their future with the company. Any additional reprimands that follow "D-Day" will amount to termination of employment. Employees are also forbidden to transfer stores once they have received a "D-Day."
In sum, inconsistent and unjustifiable policies on work performance, absences, job duties, dress codes, cashier speed measurements, coaching/reprimanding, and D-Day's are used as pretext for forcing older employees out of employment, in an effort to reduce and restructure the Walmart work force.
The Monticello Wal-Mart's acts of age discrimination and hostile work environment are consistent with the contents of a 2005 Internal Memorandum entitled "Reviewing and Revising Walmart's Benefits Strategy," sent to the Board of Directors by Susan Chambers.
The Wal-Mart Memo outlines methods for Walmart to cut employee benefit expenses. It outlines some of Wal-Mart's designs to create a younger, healthier, and cheaper workforce. In sum, "[U]nsustainable" benefit costs were blamed on an "aging workforce" and "increasing average tenure" of employees. The memo recommends that Walmart dissuade aging and unhealthy employees from working at Walmart by "designing all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart gathering)." The memo further stated that it was essential to "redesign benefits and other aspects of the associate experience, such as job design, to attract a healthier, more productive workforce." Wal-Mart clearly planned and implemented a policy that encouraged and encourages stores to push out longtime, older employees.
There is and has been a pattern and practice of age discrimination intended to deprive older Walmart employees of the opportunity to optimize the benefits available to them.
As you are aware, age discrimination violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), NY Exec Law § 296 et seq. As Walmart employs more than 20 people, the ADEA applies to them. The material change in working conditions and disparate treatment of similarly situated younger employees are clearly unwelcome and constitute age discrimination that directly affects the employment, work performance, and sense of security in the workplace for individuals over forty years of age.
In addition to the above, please also accept the following as individual charges of age discrimination and hostile work environment by Elsie Crowell, Joanne Botsford, Donald Botsford, Eugenio Toma, Michael Priore, and John Kelly. The above referenced acts of discrimination, as well as the following, continue to contribute to the continuous practice of age discrimination and hostile work environment, and no corrective action has yet to be taken by Walmart.
Ms. Crowell
Ms. Crowell is seventy years old. She was a Walmart employee for thirteen years. She worked at the Monticello location for almost nine years. Ms. Crowell became Personnel Manager in July 2008. She was illegally forced to retire on April 11, 2009. In addition to suffering age discrimination and suffering hostile work environment, Ms. Crowell witnessed discriminatory treatment of older workers.
Until new management recently arrived at the Monticello Walmart, Ms. Crowell received consistent pay increases in line with her consistent high performance evaluations. In September 2008, for instance, Ms. Crowell received an "Exceeds" evaluation, which is the highest form of evaluation given by Walmart.
In December 2008, Walmart Monticello was assigned a new store manager, Connie Giordano. Subsequently, Ms. Giordano brought in an entirely new, younger management team, including assistant managers Tiffany and Robin (last names unknown). Several experienced, longtime older assistant managers were fired.
As Personnel Manager, Ms. Crowell witnessed multiple occurrences of efforts by management to implement a reduction in the older members of the store's work force by firing older employees and replacing them with younger employees.
Ms. Crowell was forced to provide a list of all employees older than 69.
In conversations with Assistant Manager Brad Middleton, Ms. Crowell learned that Middleton was instructed by Giordano to fire approximately seven employees "because they were old" and to "get that old person out of here." Middleton was instructed to use lack of attendance as an excuse for firing these employees and that this was Walmart's way of "restructuring."
Middleton informed Giordano that it was illegal to fire older employees because they were older. Middleton complied with Giordano's requests in order to keep his job.
Ms. Crowell witnessed management utilizing a computerized coding system for tracking absenteeism. Some employee absences were labeled as legitimate, whereas others were labeled as unapproved. The "Unapproved Absence" label was assigned to older employees' days out of work substantially more often than it was assigned to younger employees' days out of work.
Management was consistently offensive when interacting with older employees. Ms. Crowell was witness to both verbal and written "coachings" and other reprimands given to older employees for various reasons by Ms. Giordano and other management. Older employees often appeared before Ms. Crowell seeking relief from age discrimination they experienced.
Older employees, such as door greeters, were ridiculed with comments such as "why doesn't she retire," "she shouldn't be here," and "she's causing problems for everybody." Rob Sparks, a co-manager, was also heard as saying comments such as "that lazy ass just gotta go."
Ms. Crowell was not only a witness to age discrimination and suffered from the hostile work environment, she was also the target of degrading old-age-related comments by management.
Older cashiers and door greeters were repeatedly instructed to do heavy maintenance work outside of their job duties, including, but not limited to, washing bathrooms, cleaning windows, scrubbing floors, and lifting heavy items. When refusing to complete these tasks, older employees were reprimanded and/or fired.
Older cashiers did not receive the required breaks under Walmart policy, younger employees did.
Older cashiers were and are compelled to meet impractical speed measurements for checking out items for customers. Ms. Crowell heard co-manager Rob Sparks comment that older people are slower at the registers because older people have bad backs.
Ms. Crowell witnessed older employees being reprimanded and/or fired for dress code violations while younger employees were permitted to routinely ignore the same dress codes.
As a result of unfounded reprimands and the disparate treatment of older employees, D-Days were given to these employees as a way of forcing them out of Walmart employment.
Older employees were and are victims of the hostility towards them.
While in the position of Personnel Manager, Ms. Crowell witnessed the illegal conduct towards older Americans: younger applicants were favored for employment over more qualified, older individuals.
As a result of the age discrimination suffered directly and via the hostility towards older people in general, Ms. Crowell suffered severe stress and anxiety and ultimately lost her job.
Ms. Crowell was prohibited from interacting with other associates or assistant managers while at work. Sparks was particularly afraid that Ms. Crowell would reveal confidential information regarding "coachings" and plans for firing older workers. Younger managers, however, were not only permitted to socialize with employees throughout the store but sexual relationships among management and management-staff were well known.
Although Ms. Crowell consistently received high performance evaluations, tasks that were ordinarily completed by her were instead consistently given to younger employees, such as Ms. Crowell's training coordinator, by managers Sparks and Tiffany.
Ms. Crowell regularly received unwarranted "coachings," while younger employees were not reprimanded. For instance, while manager Tiffany was not reprimanded for submitting a late associate evaluation, Ms. Crowell received a verbal warning for failing to notify Tiffany about the deadline, even though Ms. Crowell had proof of various emails alerting her of the approaching deadline.
Ms. Crowell took an official, approved medical leave of absence for 90 days to seek care and treatment for stress and anxiety experienced as a result of the hostile work environment created by Walmart. Ms. Crowell could not control her hands, as they were shaking uncontrollably from stress and anxiety. Her doctor originally advised that she should take a one-month leave of absence, but later extended it to a two-month period for fear that Ms. Crowell would experience a severe anxiety attack.
Ms. Crowell was reluctant to take her leave of absence, as she was witness to other older employees being fired or demoted upon their return from an approved leave.
When a jewelry department associate in her forties or fifties, Kim, took a similar leave of absence, management told Ms. Crowell that they were removing Kim from her position even though she had 90-day job security. When Kim attempted to return to work, management demoted her. After Kim threatened to contact her attorney regarding age discrimination, management immediately returned her to her previous job.
Furthermore, a former older bakery employee, Shirley Calhoun, received a doctor's note restricting her job duties after being injured at work. Management informed Shirley that she had to leave her job if she refused to accept a different job assignment. Upon refusal, Shirley was forced to quit.
Walmart policy explains that employees who are sick or injured are not obligated to return to work until they can completely perform the necessary job duties required of their current position.
Upon returning to her job, Ms. Crowell discovered that a younger person had her job. The younger person was a new hire with limited experience in management. Ms. Crowell learned that her official leave of absence was never entered into the computer system, as required by Walmart policy. Management proceeded to inform Ms. Crowell that she had been replaced in her position of Personnel Manager. Contrary to Walmart procedures, however, the position was never posted as open to be filled.
Ms. Crowell was further notified that she could continue working at Walmart only if she would work as a cashier or as a lawn and garden attendant. This position was materially less prestigious and materially less suited to her skills and expertise. When Ms. Crowell refused to accept a demotion to either of these positions, management told her "retire or get fired." Since Ms. Crowell was left with no alternative, she opted to retire.
Walmart deliberately created working conditions that were so intolerable that Ms. Crowell was forced into retirement. Due to her age, Ms. Crowell experienced continuous and pervasive intimidation, ridicule, and insult that clearly affected the conditions of her employment, and has resulted in the disparate treatment and disparate impact on older employees.
Walmart may claim that Ms. Crowell may not assert her claims herein. After Ms. Crowell was forced to retire, management required her to sign a Secrecy Agreement and thus waive her rights to approach the Department of Labor or the EEOC. For fear of being branded and unemployable, Ms. Crowell signed this agreement.
The document was not an appropriate "knowing and voluntary" waiver as required by 29 U.S.C. § 626 (f) (1). In addition, the waiver may not be used to interfere with Ms. Crowell's protected right to file a charge.
Please accept this letter as a request that the EEOC take action to protect Ms. Crowell's rights and seek damages, compensatory as well as punitive, for the gross misconduct by Walmart, and the mistreatment and tortious conduct Ms. Crowell suffered and witnessed.
The contact information for Ms. Crowell is 59 Center Street, Wurtsboro, New York 12790. Her phone number is (845) 888-4459. We would ask, however, that all correspondence be directed to the undersigned as Ms. Crowell's counsel and that no communications occur without advance notice to the undersigned.
Mrs. Botsford:
Mrs. Botsford is sixty-seven years old. She has been a cashier at the Monticello Walmart since June 10, 2008. She was illegally forced to take a leave of absence, and encouraged to leave the company before she wanted to retire.
On August 26, 2009, Mrs. Botsford was injured on the job. Upon returning to work, Mrs. Botsford received a doctor's note stating that she was restricted from lifting any items weighing more than three pounds. Walmart, however, ignored the doctor's instructions and refused to accommodate Mrs. Botsford's needs, even though younger employees are consistently accommodated for health reasons.
For instance, younger employees have been placed in different departments while recovering from injury or illness.
Mrs. Botsford is repeatedly forced to lift heavy items at work, including beer cases, water jugs, and dog food. These items are often at least five to ten pounds each. Mrs. Botsford and other older cashiers are thus required to lift items that they are not capable of lifting, while younger employees are routinely assigned to less demeaning tasks.
Although Mrs. Botsford has no interest in taking more time off from work, she is being illegally forced into taking an involuntary leave of absence.
Kelly, a manager at Walmart, has told Mrs. Botsford that an additional absence from work is necessary and that accommodation is impossible. Mrs. Botsford is concerned that she will receive a coaching and/or a D-Day if she is absent from work, as older employees are subject to disproportionate amounts of coachings and D-Day's.
In addition, Mrs. Botsford has witnessed CSMs requiring older cashiers to partake in overly demanding work, including heavy lifting and other strenuous, physical activities.
While the CSMs constantly badger and ridicule the older cashiers, asking them to do extra work not required of them, the younger cashiers often swear and yell at the CSMs when asked to do a task, yet receive no coachings or reprimands.
Contrary to Walmart policy, Mrs. Botsford frequently fails to receive her scheduled 15-minute breaks. The CSMs instead gives younger employees breaks before any of the older employees. Younger staffers get their breaks during the shifts, older employees are forced to wait many hours before obtaining their breaks.
Oftentimes, Mrs. Botsford is not told that she can go on break until the end of her work shift. On other days, Mrs. Botsford works 3-4 hours straight without receiving any break, while many of the younger cashiers go on their breaks during that time.
As a cashier, Mrs. Botsford is constantly under pressure to meet speed measurements set by Walmart management. The requirements set out are unreasonable for older employees, and Mrs. Botsford is frequently reprimanded for failing to meet the standard.
Mrs. Botsford has been told by Assistant Manager Tiffany that she is "too slow" and that younger people are faster at the registers.
Mrs. Botsford has been reprimanded for failing to abide by the dress code policy, as she wore grey, instead of tan clothing on one occasion. She has routinely witnessed younger employees who ignore the same dress codes, yet receive no reprimands.
Mrs. Botsford observed management allowing younger employees to take frequent time off from work, come in late, and take unscheduled breaks, yet younger workers are not often reprimanded for their actions. Older employees, on the other hand, are regularly and consistently reprimanded whether deserved or not.
Mrs. Botsford was also witness to a physical fight within the store that required police assistance. Mrs. Botsford saw Assistant Manager Tiffany's boyfriend enter the store and commence an altercation with co-manager Rob. Although Rob was initially fired, Walmart rehired him within one week. Older employees are regularly terminated for considerably less serious incidents.
Mrs. Botsford has observed that Walmart is attempting to reduce their work force by getting rid of older employees, while replacing them with younger individuals.
As a result of the age discrimination suffered directly and via the hostility towards older people in general, Mrs. Botsford has experienced continuous and pervasive intimidation, ridicule, and insult that clearly affects the conditions of her employment, and has resulted in the disparate treatment and disparate impact on older employees.
Please accept this letter as a request that the EEOC take action to protect Mrs. Botsford's rights and seek damages, compensatory as well as punitive, for the gross misconduct by Walmart, and the mistreatment and tortious conduct Mrs. Botsford suffered.
The contact information for Mrs. Botsford is P.O. Box 130, Ferndale, New York 12734. Her phone number is (845) 434-0270. We would ask, however, that all correspondence be directed to the undersigned as Mrs. Botsford's counsel.
Mr. Botsford
Mr. Botsford is seventy years old. He began working at the Monticello Walmart as an overnight shift greeter in 2003. He was illegally terminated on August 3, 2009.
Until new management recently arrived at the Monticello Walmart, Mr. Botsford received standard pay increases.
During his first 5 ½ years of employment at Walmart, Mr. Botsford accumulated 130 hours of sick time, as he was a dedicated employee and rarely took time off from his job.
In Winter 2008, Mr. Botsford became ill with flu symptoms and had to take approximately one or two days off to recover. Consistent with Walmart guidelines, Mr. Botsford called the Walmart Hotline to report his absence from work. Store manager Ms. Giordano, however, verbally reprimanded him about the use of sick time, even though younger employees are regularly allowed time off when necessary.
A few weeks later, Mr. Botsford was again feeling ill, and as a result, he missed one day of work. Upon returning to work, Mr. Botsford was told by Ms. Giordano that it was "D-Day." Younger employees are generally not given D-Day's for using available sick time.
Mr. Botsford was told that that if he used any additional sick time, Walmart would terminate his employment.
Mr. Botsford was later forced to take one sick day due to an ailing stomach virus. Immediately upon his return to work on August 3, 2009, Mr. Botsford was fired by Ms. Giordano.
Nevertheless, Mr. Botsford had 33 hours of sick time remaining, as well as 18 hours of personal time on the books at the time of his termination.
Similarly situated younger employees at Walmart are generally not terminated for using available sick or personal days.
Mr. Botsford witnessed numerous younger employees taking excessive time off from work and going on unscheduled breaks, yet they are generally not reprimanded. Older employees, such as Mr. Botsford, are more often and unjustifiably reprimanded and fired.
Since being terminated, Mr. Botsford has become aware that Walmart is continuing to attempt to reduce their work force by getting rid of older employees, while replacing them with younger individuals. In conversations with individuals who are still employed by Walmart, Mr. Botsford has learned that the ratio of younger to older employees is getting increasingly disproportionate.
As a result of the age discrimination suffered directly and via the hostility towards older people in general, Mr. Botsford experienced continuous and pervasive intimidation, ridicule, and insult that clearly affected the conditions of his employment, and has resulted in the disparate treatment and disparate impact on older employees.
Please accept this letter as a request that the EEOC take action to protect Mr. Botsford's rights and seek damages, compensatory as well as punitive, for the gross misconduct by Walmart, and the mistreatment and tortious conduct Mr. Botsford suffered.
The contact information for Mr. Botsford is P.O. Box 130, Ferndale, New York 12734. His phone number is (845) 434-0270. We would ask, however, that all correspondence be directed to the undersigned as Mr. Botsford's counsel and that the undersigned be made aware, in advance, of any communication with our client.
Mr. Toma
Mr. Toma is seventy-one years old. He has been a sales associate at the Monticello Walmart since March 25, 2005.
Starting in March 2009, Mr. Toma developed a foot condition that caused serious pain. After seeking medical attention, he took a leave of absence from work until May 2009. Upon his return to work, Mr. Toma requested that his job require less walking and lifting, as he could no longer handle the significant weight that he was required to bear on the job. Mr. Toma's job duties ordinarily require that he unload boxes from trucks, and then stack various products on holding shelves where they are stored until moved to retail shelves.
Mr. Toma received a doctor's note stating that he was restricted from lifting or pushing heavy items, and that he was to partake in only limited walking while on the job. Management refused to accommodate his needs by placing him in a different department or by assigning him a different position, such as a door greeter.
Younger Walmart employees are treated differently: younger employees are often accommodated for similar requests, ie. reduced duties or changed departments. Younger employees have also been afforded the courtesy of jobs that do not require heavy lifting or excessive movement.
Although younger employees have been placed in different departments and positions while recovering from injury or illness, Mr. Toma was told "do your job or get out."
Fearing that he would be fired, Mr. Toma complied with management's request and continued to perform unbearable heavy lifting and carrying. As a result, his foot injury resurfaced and he developed an infection, with severe discomfort and pain. Mr. Toma informed his manager and again requested an accommodation, but was told "too bad."
He was thus illegally forced to take an additional indefinite amount of time off from work on September 10, 2009.
Mr. Toma is on the verge of being forced into involuntary retirement.
He has also noticed that over the past few years, older employees are being forced out of work, while younger employees are progressively replacing them.
By failing to accommodate Mr. Toma's needs because of his age, Walmart has deliberately created intolerable working conditions, permeated with continuous and pervasive intimidation, ridicule, and insult that clearly affect the conditions of his employment, and has resulted in the disparate treatment and disparate impact on older employees.
Please accept this letter as a request that the EEOC take action to protect Mr. Toma's rights and seek damages, compensatory as well as punitive, for the gross misconduct by Walmart, and the mistreatment and tortious conduct Mr. Toma suffered.
The contact information for Mr. Toma is 35 Wawanda Avenue, Liberty, New York 12754. His phone number is (845) 292-5745. We would ask, however, that all correspondence be directed to the undersigned as Mr. Toma's counsel and, like all of our clients, we request advance notice prior to any communication.
Mr. Priore
Mr. Priore is fifty-four years old. He was refused employment at the Monticello Walmart due to age discrimination.
Mr. Priore has approximately 30 years of experience in retail management.
On January 28, 2009, Mr. Priore filled out an on-line job application for a retail management position with the Monticello Walmart. It was not until May 28, 2009 that Mr. Priore was called in for an interview by Manager Giordano.
After Mr. Priore's interview, Giordano conducted an interview with a substantially younger woman for the same position.
Mr. Priore did not hear from the Monticello Walmart regarding his interview, and was instead offered a position at a different Walmart store in Newburgh, New York, located two hours from his home. Mr. Priore declined the job due to the unnecessarily long commute.
After failing to receive any correspondence from Ms. Giordano, Mr. Priore went into Walmart to inquire with Ms. Giordano about the status of his application. He asked if she could return his phone calls. The only response given by Ms. Giordano was that "you are a maverick" and "I doubt it, as you are really low on the list."
Mr. Priore further discovered that the position was filled by the younger woman who was interviewed on the same day as him.
Mr. Priore strongly feels that he was denied employment because he has gray hair. During the application process, Mr. Priore noticed that the management staff tends to be significantly younger than him, and that the limited amount of older employees are door greeters.
Although he was adequately qualified for the position in retail management, Walmart refused to hire Mr. Priore because of his age, and instead hired a younger individual.
As stated above, Elsie Crowell, while employed at Walmart, witnessed that during job application procedures, younger applicants are favored for employment over more qualified, older individuals.
The failure to hire Mr. Priore was thus the result of continuing violations of age discrimination at the Monticello Walmart, and has resulted in the disparate treatment and disparate impact on older employees
Please accept this letter as a request that the EEOC take action to protect Mr. Priore's rights and seek damages, compensatory as well as punitive, for the gross misconduct by Walmart, and the mistreatment and tortious conduct Mr. Priore suffered.
The contact information for Mr. Priore is 425 Horseshoe Lake Road, Swan Lake, New York 12783. His phone number is (845) 583-5857. We would ask, however, that all correspondence be directed to the undersigned as Mr. Priore's counsel and that the undersigned be notified, in advance, of any attempts to communicate with Mr. Priore.
Mr. Kelly
Mr. Kelly is sixty-seven years old. He was refused employment at the Monticello Walmart due to age discrimination.
In February 2009, Mr. Kelly was called in for an interview at Walmart after applying for a maintenance position. After arriving for his interview on time, he was kept waiting approximately three hours with no explanation.
During the interview, Mr. Kelly was told that he had to have a drug test, but was provided no additional information regarding the test. The next day, Mr. Kelly was called back to Walmart and was told that he had to complete additional paperwork. Mr. Kelly was also provided with the name of a laboratory at which he could have the drug test performed. When Walmart called Mr. Kelly the following day to ask him about the status of his drug test, Mr. Kelly responded that he had not yet had time to complete the test. The manager on the phone told Mr. Kelly that the drug test was supposed to be performed within 24 hours of his initial interview. Mr. Kelly insisted that he was never told about this time constraint.
The manager told Mr. Kelly that he was probably "senile" and that he "just forgot." The manager further told Mr. Kelly that "old people act like that all the time when they can't remember stuff."
After continuing to insist that he was never given proper instructions for the drug test, Mr. Kelly was advised that he was barred from reapplying to Walmart for one year since he had failed to get the drug test done on time.
Younger applicants are favored for employment over more qualified, older individuals.
Mr. Kelly called the corporate department of Walmart to complain about the treatment he received due to his age. The district human resources representative informed Mr. Kelly to meet with her instead of filing a formal complaint. When Mr. Kelly arrived at the representative's office, she refused to meet with him.
Mr. Kelly was not hired because of his age. Walmart's discrimination has resulted in the disparate treatment and disparate impact on older employees.
Please accept this letter as a request that the EEOC take action to protect Mr. Kelly's rights and seek damages, compensatory as well as punitive, for the gross misconduct by Walmart, and the mistreatment and tortious conduct Mr. Kelly suffered.
The contact information for Mr. Kelly is 74 Sturgis Road, Monticello, New York 12701. His phone number is (845) 794-3832. We would ask, however, that all correspondence be directed to the undersigned as Mr. Kelly's counsel and that we receive advance notice of any attempts to communicate with Mr. Kelly.
Please also accept this letter as a request that the EEOC dual files this charge of age discrimination and hostile work environment with the New York State Division of Human Rights.
Thanking you in advance for your time, I remain
Respectfully yours,
Cory Rosenbaum
|
