On Tuesday, Pablo Rosales filed a complaint asking for damages from Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas. The former employee claimed that he was wrongfully fired by the company because of his age after almost 40 years of working there. Rosales, at age 57, was reportedly replaced by an employee who was 30 years old.
According to the plaintiff, Pilgrim’s Pride violated rights to which he was entitled under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and should be awarded economic, compensatory, and liquidated damages and other court costs.
Rosales reported that he filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which determined that he had a right to file the lawsuit because he used administrative remedies and filed it within the required time frame after receiving approval from the commission.
Tuesday’s complaint reported that Rosales was working on a wrapping machine when he was terminated, following an incident where a lock was placed on the wrong machine. Rosales purported that the same mistake had been made by at least two other machine operators previously, and neither of them had been fired. The plaintiff, however, was sent home approximately two hours after the mistake was realized and was fired the subsequent day.
“Prior to the incident Plaintiff had not been written up or disciplined for his job performance in the entire time he worked for Pilgrims Pride. Plaintiff alleges his termination was motivated by a discriminatory animus towards Plaintiff because of his age,” the complaint claimed.
Rosales listed one cause of action, discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. He purported that the policies and practices of Pilgrim’s Pride contributed to “unlawful and systematic age discrimination” and that the defendant did not provide equal conditions of employment and had unreasonable standards for Rosales.
The plaintiff asked for damages to cover past lost income and earnings, including the benefits under his previous employment contract with the defendant. He asked for either reinstatement to his former position or front pay to cover his future earnings.
Rosales is represented by Hommel Law Firm.
