On Wednesday, a former employee filed a complaint in the District of Kansas against The University of Kansas Health System for an alleged violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff is a resident of Kansas City, Missouri and was employed by The University of Kansas Health System for 21 years as an Ambulatory RN Care Coordinator until her termination on July 13, 2020. The complaint states that at all times during her employment at The University of Kansas Health System, the plaintiff was over the age of 40.
The complaint states The University of Kansas Health System is a corporation created pursuant to Kansas statute and is considered a statutory employer because it employs more than 20 people.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of age discrimination and allowed age discrimination of its employees to occur. Further, the complaint states that on July 12, 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released a formal determination that, for at least a decade prior, the defendant knew of and participated in age discrimination against its employees in the workplace.
The plaintiff states that shortly after her 50th birthday, in August 2019, she was informed by the defendant she had “topped-out” in salary eligibility. The plaintiff goes on to state that afterwards, she began receiving formal disciplinary warnings and notices of alleged violations of company policy for actions that were actively being undertaken by younger employees of the defendant without any such discipline. The complaint states that the unfair and targeted disciplinary actions directed at the plaintiff resulted in her termination on July 13, 2020.
The complaint further states the plaintiff followed the defendant’s grievance procedure following her termination as outlined in the defendant’s policies. The plaintiff states that, despite following these procedures, the defendant upheld its decision to terminate the plaintiff on September 3, 2020. The plaintiff alleges that a motivating factor in the defendant’s decision to terminate the plaintiff was her age.
The plaintiff seeks economic damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and pre- and post-judgment interest for the defendants alleged age discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The plaintiff is represented by the Schmitt Law Firm.
