PART 2:
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTIONS
Discrimination Based on Age
11. PLAINTIFF was born on January 7th of 1960. PLAINTIFF was 45 years old when he was hired at DEFENDANT under Sr. Manager MGR1, who is not a party to this action.
12. PLAINTIFF was hired as a Project Manager/Technical Lead at DEFENDANT on May of 2005.
13. PLAINTIFF was 49 years old when he was fired on February of 2009 under a different Sr. Manager, MGR2.
14. PLAINTIFF has over 20 years of experience as a computer programmer for business applications running on mainframe. The last 15 years, PLAINTIFF was a Business Applications Programmer/Analyst with expertise on Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) System , writing COBOL programs, JCL's and Gentran Sub-system mapping. PLAINTIFF has the expertise to manage the Gentran Sub-system. PLAINTIFF has been the Subject Matter Expert on Gentran and have performed mapping and/or version conversion for companies like ETC.
15. At all material times, PLAINTIFF fully, adequately and completely performed all of the functions, duties and responsibilities of his employment with DEFENDANT.
16. At all material times, PLAINTIFF is a member of the EDI Team reporting to MGR2, Sr. Manager in charge of System Integration (webMethods) Team and Partner Integration (EDI) Team.
17. PLAINTIFF requested to MGR2, but was denied, the opportunity to manage a project to create a proto-type for migrating EDI processes from mainframe to webMethods platform. Instead, MGR2 hired an outside resource named CON1 to manage the project. On information and belief, CON1 is significantly younger than PLAINTIFF, with no experience on Gentran System, mainframe applications, and webMethods applications, therefore, less qualified to manage an EDI migration project than PLAINTIFF.
18. PLAINTIFF believes that he was denied another opportunity to manage the EDI Data Feeds to CreditCard and Marketing Group Project. MGR2 assigned EMP3, an employee, to manage the project in spite of Plaintiff's request. EMP3 is significantly younger than PLAINTIFF and with less EDI experience than PLAINTIFF.
19. PLAINTIFF believes that he was denied another opportunity to manage the Hawaii Project in spite of repeated requests. Furthermore, PLAINTIFF assured MGR2 that he is willing to work overtime if necessary without cost to DEFENDANT. PLAINTIFF initiated the project, developed the necessary mapping of data, and processed testdata allowing SAP Group to develop the necessary screens requested. However, MGR2 hired another outside resource named CON2 who lives in another State and is not knowledgeable of and have no experience on mainframe, JCL, and EDI/Gentran. Upon information and belief, CON2 is significantly younger than PLAINTIFF and less qualified than PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF assisted onshore resources while performing his day-to-day duties and responsibilities.
20. Upon information and belief, MGR2 gave PLAINTIFF the wrong impression of managing the Gentran Version Upgrade Project. PLAINTIFF started performing the necessary project analyses, program changes, JCL changes, and testing. At the same time, PLAINTIFF was also performing his day-to-day duties and responsibilities as an EDI Team member.
21. As PLAINTIFF works on the Gentran Version Upgrade Project, MGR2 hired another resource, INTERIM, as an interim EDI Manager. Upon information and belief, INTERIM does not have any experience with mainframe, with Gentran mapping, or project management. A week after the completion of the Hawaii Project, MGR2 had INTERIM takeover the Gentran Version Upgrade Project from PLAINTIFF without advance notice to PLAINTIFF nor was given any reason. INTERIM is significantly younger than Plaintiff.
22. On or around September 5, 2008, MGR2 puts PLAINTIFF on Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). MGR2 claims that the PIP is an effort to help PLAINTIFF improve his performance during fiscal year 2008. However, PLAINTIFF believes that the PIP was intended as a setup to terminate his employment.
23. PLAINTIFF believes that the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) was an aCON6e for the defendants to harass PLAINTIFF and create a hostile work environment.
24. PLAINTIFF was indeed harassed by MGR2 and INTERIM. The workplace has become a hostile environment for PLAINTIFF.
25. PLAINTIFF was required to have two one-hour meeting a week - one with MGR2 and another with INTERIM. During such meetings, MGR2 and INTERIM, separately, repeatedly questioned and criticized PLAINTIFF's professionalism.
26. During a one-on-one meeting, INTERIM asked PLAINTIFF if he thinks he earned his pay for the days he didn't work on a specific project, insinuating that Plaintiff was not doing his job, thereby, stealing money from the company.
27. During a one-on-one meeting, INTERIM told PLAINTIFF about his previous job wherein he resigned because of his disagreement with his superior, insinuating that Plaintiff should quit if he disagrees with how things are.
28. On several occasions in SrVP's office, MGR2 criticized PLAINTIFF of being paid too much for poor performance in spite of the number of years of experience PLAINTIFF has, insinuating incompetence.
29. The PIP Task for Goal 2.4 calls for PLAINTIFF to, "Seek out technical challenges in assignments". On or around September 16, 2008, WRPC Business Unit based in OTHER City wants to establish new EDI transactions with their vendors. PLAINTIFF volunteered in accordance to the PIP Task but MGR2 indicated that he is ineligible to manage this project since he is on PIP. MGR2 contradicts the PIP requirement he authored. PLAINTIFF had worked numerous times with WRPC.
30. PLAINTIFF believes that there are several other projects that can be considered as technically challenging but were not assigned to him by INTERIM. As the interim EDI Manager, INTERIM takes instructions from MGR2. Instead, INTERIM would assign task or project to a non-EDI member.
31. The PIP Task 1 for Goal 1.3 calls for PLAINTIFF to study 3 webMethods Training Manuals and pass a verbal test conducted by a person of MGR2's choice. PLAINTIFF asked to attend a seminar but was denied. By December of 2008, PLAINTIFF has not completed this task and MGR2 told PLAINTIFF that he would recommend to HR to proceed with the recommendation indicated in the PIP citing termination. However, on January 27, 2009, INTERIM sent an email message to EMPWB, considered expert on webMethods with the System Integration Team, to conduct webMethods training for the Partner Integration (EDI) Team. On February 9 of 2009, PLAINTIFF was terminated.
32. The PIP Task 2 for Goal 1.3 calls for PLAINTIFF to "Research secure mainframe file transmission methods (sFTP), reviewing accessibility (cost), level of security, and suitability to company's goals – through discussions with data security, and present findings to the Team Leads". This requirement is out-of-scope of PLAINTIFF's expertise and duties as an applications programmer since sFTP is an Operating System software. SCA1, a System's Programmer with PARENTCo, has installed the software and had asked PLAINTIFF's assistance with testing. According to SCA1, it is the System Programmer who installs software and not application programmers. Furthermore, PARENTCo owns the mainframe machine and PLAINTIFF is not an PARENTCo employee, therefore, not authorized to install any software on the mainframe.
33. The PIP Task for SEL 6 calls for PLAINTIFF to train each member of the team on subjects he has substantial knowledge of, including INTERIM. INTERIM cancelled in the morning of the scheduled training day. CON6, another EDI Team member, asked for out-of-scope topics. Only EMP3 worked with Plaintiff.
34. CON6, an EDI team member, was going on vacation and INTERIM asked CON6 to give the project he was working on to PLAINTIFF. CON6 did not provide a written requirement for the project. When PLAINTIFF missed a portion of the project, he was reprimanded and demeaned during his one-on-one meetings with MGR2 and INTERIM. Both accused PLAINTIFF for failing to follow the flowchart and documentations, however, INTERIM cannot produce the flowchart and documentation he was referring to. CON6 insisted on providing the requirements, however, failed to provide any documentation or Definition of Work. MGR2 further accused PLAINTIFF to be careless and unprofessional in the presence of SrVP and HRMgr. SrVP supported MGR1's accusation and reprimanded PLAINTIFF. CON6 refers to the project, "the one PLAINTIFF' messed up" to other team members before and after Plaintiff's termination.
35. INTERIM criticized PLAINTIFF's recommended process of implementing the AAFES 856 Project. MGR2 accused PLAINTIFF's email messages to be combative and claimed to cause the project requestor to ask if he needs "Pay-per-View". However, the requestor mentioned this the day after as a joke in the hallway. MGR2 used this to harass PLAINTIFF and reported to SrVP who reprimanded PLAINTIFF and stated, "we are not asking you to kill somebody". PLAINTIFF believes that his decision was based on his years of experience and knowledge of common practices on EDI. PLAINTIFF proceeded with his plan and avoided the anticipated error.
36. PLAINTIFF believes that on or around November 10, 2008, INTERIM told EMP3 not to speak on behalf of PLAINTIFF or support PLAINTIFF with his projects. However, PLAINTIFF is the one supporting EMP3 with the Disney 850 Project. Furthermore, PLAINTIFF does not have a full load of projects because INTERIM, as the interim EDI Manager who assigns projects to team members, was not assigning projects to PLAINTIFF. This issue was brought up with HRMgr, MGR2, and SrVP. HRMgr claimed that EMP3 did not have a witness that INTERIM and was supported by MGR2 and SrVP.
