An ex-employee filed suit against his former employer, defendant Oakstreet Health, on Wednesday in the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiff claims that he was discriminated based on his gender and race, and later terminated as retaliation for attempting to rectify the discrimination.
The plaintiff, an African American man, began working for the defendant in early 2018 as an Outreach Associate and Account Executive. A part of his job, according to the complaint, was to perform welcome visits for potential clients, where he would give them a tour of the facility and they would receive a complimentary checkup. He was paid $150 for each welcome visit he completed. If an employee did not meet the monthly goal for welcome visits, it became harder for them to receive a promotion.
The plaintiff’s director, according to the complaint, consistently gave the women in the department all the leads for welcome visits as a method to ensure that the women were meeting their monthly goal and avoiding write-ups.
In March of 2019, the director allegedly removed the plaintiff from all company events where he could solicit new leads. Just one month later, two of the plaintiff’s female colleagues expressed to him “that [their director] was giving them leads for patients instead of equally distributing them.” In 2020, another female colleague was able to miss the welcome visit quota three months in a row while avoiding a write-up, according to the complaint.
The complaint also alleged that in March 2020, another member of the company physically and verbally abused the plaintiff. He reported the incident to HR, but no action was taken and the offender was allowed to remain in the building, according to the complaint, and the plaintiff’s transfer request was denied. Days later, he was terminated.
The plaintiff contends that his termination was a result of racial and sexual discrimination, he was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment than his female colleagues, he was denied promotions, and discharged in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity.
The complaint cites multiple violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory, pecuniary, exemplary, and punitive damages, an award of lost wages, litigation fees, and any other relief deemed equitable by the court.
The plaintiff is represented by Aikens Law Firm.
