University of Kansas health system sued for age discrimination


Wednesday, a former employee deposit a lawsuit filed in the District of Kansas against the University of Kansas Health System for alleged violation of the 1967 Employment Age Discrimination Act.

According to the complaint, the complainant is a resident of Kansas City, Missouri and was employed by the University of Kansas Health System for 21 years as an outpatient nursing coordinator until her termination on July 13, 2020. The complaint indicates that at any time during her employment with the University of Kansas Health System, the complainant was over 40 years of age.

The complaint states that the University of Kansas Health System is a corporation established under Kansas law 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 its employees to be discriminated against on the basis of age. Further, the complaint states that on July 12, 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission issued a formal decision that, for at least a decade earlier, the defendant was aware of and participated in a age discrimination against its employees in the workplace.

The Complainant states that shortly after her 50th birthday, in August 2019, she was informed by the Respondent that she had a “cap” in eligibility for salary. The Complainant goes on to state that she subsequently began to receive formal disciplinary warnings and notices of alleged violations of company policy for actions actively taken by young employees of the Respondent without any such discipline. The complaint states that the unfair and targeted disciplinary action against the complainant resulted in her dismissal on July 13, 2020.

The complaint further states that the Applicant followed the Respondent’s grievance procedure following her termination, as set out in the Respondent’s policies. The Plaintiff states that, despite these proceedings, the Defendant maintained its decision to terminate the Plaintiff on September 3, 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that a factor motivating the Defendant’s decision to terminate the Plaintiff was her age.

The plaintiff seeks economic damages, including severance and termination, lost benefits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for the defendants alleged age discrimination and reprisals in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1967. The applicant is represented by the Schmitt law firm.


About Author

Comments are closed.