Disability Discrimination Mediation Statement

Summary

John Young claims Garmin violated the ADA and FMLA by failing to accommodate his disabilities, fostering a hostile work environment, and wrongfully terminating him. He alleges his supervisors harassment and Garmins inadequate response exacerbated his conditions. Despite providing medical documentation, Garmin mismanaged his FMLA leave and did not remove attendance points after backdating ADA accommodations. Young seeks reinstatement, compensation, and policy reforms. Garmins emphasis on meeting formality aims to downplay the severity of complaints. An apology from a supervisor may indicate acknowledgment of inappropriate behavior but not legal guilt. Young urges the EEOC to investigate and hold Garmin accountable.

Full Conversation

## **Statement for EEOC Mediation** **Case Name:** ****ohn Young v. Garmin International, Inc. **EEOC Charge Number:** **Date:** [Date] **Complainant:** ****ohn Young **Respondent:** Garmin International, Inc. --- ### **I. Introduction** I, ****ohn Young, present this statement in support of my claim of **disability discrimination** against Garmin International, Inc. (“Garmin”) under the **Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), * C.F.R. Part ***, and *** U.S.C. § *(b)(*)(A)**, as well as **interference** with my rights under the **Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), * U.S.C. § *** and *** C.F.R. Part ***. I also allege that **Garmin’s Non-Exempt Attendance Policy** has a **disparate impact** on employees with disabilities, consistent with the doctrine established in **Griggs v. Duke Power Co., * U.S. * (*)** (holding that facially neutral policies may violate the law if they disproportionately affect a protected group). **Additionally, to the extent Kansas state law applies, Garmin’s actions may violate the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (K.S.A. *-* et seq.).** My allegations are based on my personal experiences, a comparative analysis of Garmin’s FMLA/ADA practices, and **precedent from *Peterson v. Garmin***, which demonstrates a pattern of selective policy enforcement. I **attempted** to resolve these issues internally, but Garmin’s **inadequate responses** and **failure** to rectify discriminatory practices make mediation necessary. --- ### **II. Statement of Facts** #### A. Discriminatory Attendance Policy and Inconsistent Application Garmin’s **Non-Exempt Attendance Policy**, as **implemented**, is discriminatory and applied inconsistently, imposing **undue hardship on employees with disabilities** who require additional scheduling flexibility. Examples include: *. **September *, ***: I received *** points** for *.* hours of tardiness, including *** points for late notification**—a penalty more severe than that for a “No Call, No Show” (which results in [**insert point value**] points). *. **September *, ***: I was assessed *** points** for notifying Garmin of my absence outside of a strict one-hour window, even though I made an effort to communicate my situation. *. **March *, ***: I was **erroneously assigned * points instead of ***, reflecting **inconsistencies** in policy application. These incidents reflect a **pattern** in which employees with disabilities are penalized more severely when minor scheduling deviations occur, effectively **disproportionately impacting** them under *** U.S.C. § *(b)(*)** and **(b)(*)** (prohibiting practices with a discriminatory effect). #### B. Failure to Accommodate and Implement ADA Accommodation Despite my **documented disability** and **requests for reasonable accommodations**, Garmin has not met its **interactive process obligations** required by the ADA: - **Previous Accommodation Requests Denied**: Before my official accommodation approval, I sought reasonable accommodations (modified schedule, reassignment to less stressful duties), which were **repeatedly denied** **without engaging** in a transparent interactive process as outlined in *** C.F.R. § *.*(o)(*)**. - **Retroactive Accommodation**: My accommodation was eventually approved, **effective December *, * (Case #*, acknowledged on ****anuary *, *)**. - **Failure to Remove Points**: Although the accommodation was retroactive, **Garmin failed to remove attendance points** accrued **during the first two weeks of ****anuary ***, contrary to *** U.S.C. § *(b)(*)(A)**. This omission **worsened my health** (exacerbating my anxiety and necessitating further absences) and created a **hostile work environment**. - **Delayed and Inadequate Response**: The **lag** between my accommodation’s **effective date** (December *) and its **acknowledgment letter** (****anuary *) illustrates **Garmin’s reactive, insufficient** approach to ADA compliance. #### C. Disparate Impact on Employees with Disabilities Garmin’s **rigid attendance policy**, combined with **inconsistent and inadequate accommodation procedures**, creates a **disparate impact** on employees with disabilities. Specifically: *. **Disproportionate Penalties**: Employees prone to tardiness due to valid medical reasons incur **excessively high points**, which can exceed the penalty for total absences without notice. *. **Lack of Interactive Process**: Garmin’s **failure** to explore and implement reasonable accommodations places **undue burden** on disabled employees, risking **disciplinary actions** that are misaligned with ADA standards. *. **Inadequate Implementation of Accommodations**: The **retroactive accommodation** in my case was never **fully honored**, negating its intent and upholding discriminatory practices. *. **Increased Risk of Termination**: The **inflexible point system**, enforced without ADA or FMLA considerations, results in elevated **disciplinary** and **termination** risk for employees requiring medical flexibility. --- ### **III. Comparative Analysis: * vs. *–* FMLA/ADA Handling** #### A. *: Exemplary, Proactive, and Supportive Approach Under Stephanie Prell (in *), Garmin displayed **proactive** and **supportive** FMLA/ADA practices: - **Proactive Advisement**: She advised me to use **FMLA** preemptively, volunteered to notify my supervisor, and maintained an open line of communication (Email Exchange, August *, *). - **Effective Resolution**: Because of her assistance, I was able to stabilize my health and **avoid** continued FMLA leave. #### B. *–*: Reactive, Inadequate, and Potentially Discriminatory Approach Under Lindsey O’Brien/TAFW, Garmin’s **current** practices deviate significantly: - **Lack of Proactive Communication**: No active discussion of my rights under **FMLA or ADA** took place. - **Resistance and Delay**: My **accommodation requests** met with **unnecessary delays** and **inadequate implementation**. - **Inconsistent Policy Application**: Points tied to absences during my retroactive accommodation period were **not removed**, showcasing a **systemic failure** to comply with legal obligations. #### C. Disparate Impact Analysis The **sharp shift** from proactive support in * to the **reactive** *–* approach imposes **significant burdens** on employees with disabilities. This **neutral** but **inflexible** attendance policy, combined with delayed accommodations, is reminiscent of the **disparate impact** doctrine explained in **Griggs**—employees with disabilities effectively face higher risks of disciplinary action and termination. Garmin's failure to accommodate and adequately engage in the interactive process exposes them to legal risks such as [**insert specific legal risks, e.g., lawsuits, fines, compensatory and punitive damages**]. **Notably, in *Peterson v. Garmin***, the court recognized Garmin’s **selective enforcement** of its policies, adding weight to the claim that similar discriminatory practices persist today. --- ### **IV. Delayed and Inadequate Notice of FMLA Exhaustion, and Evidence of Mismanagement** Garmin provided **untimely and conflicting** notices regarding **FMLA exhaustion**, **demonstrating negligence** in administering employee leave: *. **Timeline of FMLA Notifications**: - **December *, ***: HR stated I used ***.* hours** of FMLA leave, nearing exhaustion, and I would **not** be eligible again until March *, *. - **December *, ***: Supervisor Andrew Veenstra emailed, “This will use the last of the FMLA,” implying my leave was already exhausted. - **December *, ***: Another email indicated I exhausted FMLA on December *, *—followed by the dismissive phrase, **“On a side note Happy Birthday.”** *. **Issues with Notifications & Mismanagement**: - **Untimely Notice**: Notified on December *, I had little chance to **adjust** my plans before the holidays, causing **disciplinary actions** and **loss of income**. - **Inadequate and Conflicting Communication**: The discrepancy between the December 21st email and the actual FMLA exhaustion date of December 28th raises serious concerns about the accuracy and reliability of Garmin's FMLA administration. - **Dismissive and Potentially Retaliatory Tone**: The **“Happy Birthday”** remark, tacked onto negative news, evinced a tone that **appeared flippant** and **indicated** a **potential retaliatory animus**. - **Double Standard**: Garmin penalized me severely for notification “timing issues,” yet presented **late and inaccurate** notice of my own FMLA exhaustion. - **Mismanagement**: This **conflicting** FMLA exhaustion data **creates confusion**, heightening an already **stressful** situation and potentially **violating** * C.F.R. Part * (FMLA notice obligations). By failing to provide **clear**, **timely**, and **consistent** FMLA notices, Garmin **contravened** its stated policy of **open communication** and **transparency** and **interfered** with my lawful rights under *** U.S.C. § ***. --- ### **V. Legal Violations** *. **Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)** - **Failure to Accommodate**: Garmin’s **omissions** in the interactive process and **inadequate implementation** of my approved accommodation **violate * U.S.C. § *(b)(*)(A)** and *** C.F.R. Part ***. - **Disparate Impact**: The Non-Exempt Attendance Policy, **facially neutral** yet **disproportionately** harmful to employees with disabilities, contravenes *** U.S.C. § *(b)(*)** and **(b)(*)**, which prohibit practices that negatively affect protected individuals, even without explicit discriminatory intent. *. **Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)** - **Interference**: Improperly assigning points for FMLA-protected absences, **delayed notice**, and contradictory exhaustion dates constitute **interference** under *** U.S.C. § *** and *** C.F.R. §§ *.*–*.***. - **Retaliation**: The **adverse actions**, including **denial of accommodations** and **point assessments**, may be deemed **retaliatory** given their timing and Garmin’s dismissive attitude toward my FMLA leave. *. **Kansas Act Against Discrimination (K.S.A. *-* et seq.)** - **Potential State Law Violations**: To the extent my disability claims fall under state law jurisdiction, Garmin’s **actions** may also **violate** the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, which similarly bars disability discrimination. *. **Precedent: *Peterson v. Garmin*** - Demonstrates Garmin’s **history** of selectively enforcing policies against employees seeking accommodations or FMLA leave, bolstering my **systemic discrimination** claim. --- ### **VI. Relief Requested** Through this mediation, I seek remedies to address **past harm** and **prevent future violations** of the ADA and FMLA. Specifically, I request: *. **Immediate Correction of Attendance Record** - Removal of all points **accrued** during FMLA-protected absences and within the **retroactive ADA accommodation** period. *. **Revision of Non-Exempt Attendance Policy** - **Eliminate disproportionate penalties** between tardiness and no-call/no-show. - **Institute** clear, legally compliant procedures for requesting, implementing, and monitoring **ADA accommodations**. - **Ensure** compliance with **FMLA** regulations, preventing **interference** with employees’ legal leave rights, and reducing **disparate impact** on employees with disabilities. *. **Full Implementation of ADA Accommodation** - Guarantee the **approved** accommodation is promptly and **fully honored**, with ongoing **monitoring** to ensure **effectiveness**. *. **Mandatory Training** - Comprehensive training for **HR, supervisors, and managers** on **ADA** (* C.F.R. Part *) and **FMLA** (* C.F.R. Part *), with emphasis on: - The **interactive process** and **reasonable accommodation** requirements. - **Prohibitions** on **disparate impact** and **retaliation**. *. **Monetary Damages** - **Lost Wages and Benefits**: Reimbursement for wages lost due to **incorrect point assignments**, missed work, or forced leaves caused by **denial of accommodations**. I have lost wages in the amount of **$[Amount]** and additional **$[Amount]** due to [**specific reason ***] and [**specific reason ***]. - **Emotional Distress**: Compensation for **pain and suffering**, **medical expenses** of **$[Amount]**, and **anxiety** resulting from Garmin’s actions. - **Punitive Damages**: To **deter** Garmin from **continuing** such discriminatory and **unlawful** practices. *. **Non-Retaliation Assurance** - **Written** guarantee **no retaliatory action** will be taken against me or others who **participate** in this complaint. *. **Attorneys’ Fees and Costs** - Payment of all **reasonable attorneys’ fees** and **costs** incurred while pursuing these claims. --- ### **VII. Conclusion** **In conclusion**, Garmin’s **actions** reveal **ongoing** disregard for the **rights of employees with disabilities** and non-compliance with **federal (ADA, FMLA)** and **state (Kansas Act Against Discrimination)** law. The **current practices** have created a **hostile work environment**, posing **significant legal liability** for Garmin. I am **prepared** to engage in **good-faith** mediation to achieve an amicable resolution that remedies the harm I have suffered, protects employee rights, and ensures Garmin’s future compliance with the law. However, **if a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached**, I am **willing** to **file a lawsuit** in **federal court** to seek **full legal redress**. \ **Respectfully submitted,** ******ohn Young** **Supporting Documents**: - **Accommodation Acknowledgement Letter (Case #*)** - **Email Exchange with Stephanie Prell (August *, *)** - **Medical Documentation** (Supporting Disability and Need for Accommodation) - **Emails regarding FMLA exhaustion** (December *, *, and *, *) - **Any other relevant documentation** supporting these claims ---
Hello ****,
Thank you for sharing the detailed statement for your EEOC mediation. To provide more specific guidance, could you please confirm the location where these events occurred? This will help me ensure that any additional legal information or advice I provide is accurate and relevant to your jurisdiction.
Kansas
Hello ****,
Thank you for confirming the location. Here are some general legal points based on the information you provided:
- **Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)**:
- Employers must provide reasonable accommodations unless it causes undue hardship.
- Discriminatory policies or practices affecting disabled employees violate the ADA.
- **Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)**:
- Interference with FMLA rights, including improper assignment of points for FMLA-protected absences, is prohibited.
- **Kansas Act Against Discrimination**:
- Similar to federal laws, prohibits employment discrimination based on disability.
For further assistance, you might consider contacting the nearest EEOC office or a local legal aid organization.
Would you like more information on how to proceed with your EEOC mediation?
Legitimacy of statement
Hello ****,
Your statement appears comprehensive and addresses key issues under the ADA, FMLA, and Kansas Act Against Discrimination.
- **ADA**: Details potential failure to accommodate and disparate impact.
- **FMLA**: Describes interference with leave rights.
- **Kansas Act**: Aligns with federal protections.
Would you like specific guidance on enhancing your statement or additional resources for your EEOC mediation?
Did i use disparate impact correctly
Hello ****,
Yes, you used "disparate impact" correctly in your statement. The term refers to policies that, while neutral on their face, disproportionately affect a protected group. Your statement effectively demonstrates how Garmin's attendance policy disproportionately impacts employees with disabilities.
Would you like further information on strengthening your argument or any additional resources?
I was notified when i hit *.* of *. 1 day left they told me
Hello ****,
To clarify, it seems you're discussing the exhaustion of your FMLA leave. The FMLA entitles eligible employees to take up to * weeks (* hours) of leave. If Garmin notified you at *.* hours, it means you were close to the limit.
Would you like specific guidance on addressing this notification within your mediation statement?
Garmin's late notice didn't give me time to plan and i racked up attendance points before i applied for ADA. Which they backdated to December * but didnt remove attendance points
Hello ****,
To strengthen your argument, you can emphasize the following points:
- **Late FMLA Notice**:
- Garmin’s late notification of FMLA exhaustion (at *.* hours) did not allow you to plan appropriately, leading to further attendance points.
- **Backdated ADA Accommodation**:
- Despite backdating the ADA accommodation to December *, Garmin failed to remove the attendance points accrued during the covered period, which exacerbated your situation.
Would you like more detailed suggestions on how to integrate these points into your statement?
Yes
Hello ****,
Here are detailed suggestions to integrate the points into your statement:
- **Late FMLA Notice**:
- Emphasize that Garmin notified you of your FMLA exhaustion at *.* hours, leaving insufficient time to plan, resulting in attendance points.
- **Backdated ADA Accommodation**:
- Highlight that Garmin backdated your ADA accommodation to December * but failed to remove attendance points accrued during this period, worsening your situation.
Would you like further assistance with any other specific parts of your statement?
I. Failure to Inform About the Nature of the Meeting On ****anuary *, *, HR hosted a meeting with me and my supervisor, Andy Veenstra, ostensibly to address ongoing concerns about harassment and a hostile work environment. However, I was not informed of the meeting's formality or its potential impact on my complaints. This lack of transparency is directly at odds with Garmin's stated value of open communication. Instead of fostering trust and understanding, the lack of clarity about the meeting's purpose and potential consequences left me feeling vulnerable and uninformed. No Clarification on Formal vs. Informal Nature: HR did not ask me if I wanted my complaints addressed formally or informally, leaving me unaware of the potential consequences of how the meeting would be treated. Had I been given the option, I would have chosen a formal complaint process. By failing to clarify the meeting's nature, HR denied me the opportunity to ensure my concerns were escalated and properly documented. HR's Responsibility to Determine Severity: Melinda Horn, as the HR representative, held the authority and responsibility to assess the severity of my complaints. Given the allegations of harassment, retaliation, and hostile work environment, Melinda should have escalated the matter as a formal complaint under Garmin's policies and federal law. Failing to classify my complaints appropriately constitutes negligence in HR's duty to act as a neutral arbiter and protect employees from unlawful behavior. This inaction contradicts Garmin's stated "commitment to accountability." In this instance, Garmin failed to be accountable to me, their employee, by not taking my complaints seriously and not responding appropriately. II. Analysis of Garmin's Depiction of the Meeting Garmin's response misrepresents the ****anuary *, * meeting as a professional and collaborative effort aimed at resolving workplace tensions between me and my supervisor, Andy. Specifically, Garmin states: "HR hosted a meeting between Mr. Young and Mr. Veenstra where both parties discussed how to work together and the comments made between them. Mr. Veenstra stated that he did not realize his actions or comments were hurtful, but he apologized to Mr. Young regardless. Mr. Young responded by thanking Mr. Veenstra for the apology. The meeting was calm and professional." This narrative is misleading and omits critical context that highlights the mishandling of my complaints and the continuation of retaliatory behavior. This sanitized version of events clashes with Garmin's claims of truthfulness, integrity, and respect in its communication and company values. Their response letter, by misrepresenting the meeting and downplaying my concerns, deviates from these core principles. Failure to Accurately Represent the Meeting's Tone and Purpose: Garmin's description frames the meeting as a productive discussion between equals; however, the meeting failed to address my substantive complaints of harassment and retaliation. The claim that I thanked Andy for his apology is questionable. To my recollection, no apology was made during this meeting, nor was there any genuine acknowledgment of the harm caused by Andy's prior behavior. Role of Retaliation in the Meeting: The accusations made by Mr. Veenstra during the meeting constitute retaliation under the law. By shifting the focus to alleged workplace misconduct on my part, the meeting became a forum for further intimidation rather than addressing my concerns of harassment and a hostile work environment. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, retaliation occurs when an employer subjects an employee to adverse actions for asserting their legal rights. In this case, Mr. Veenstra's accusations—unsupported and unverified—were a direct response to my prior protected complaints about his conduct and furthered a hostile work environment. This retaliatory behavior directly contradicts Garmin's stated policy: "Garmin does not allow retaliation against associates who in good faith report concerns under this code." Instead of being protected for raising concerns, I faced further hostility and ultimately termination. Baseless Accusations of Absenteeism: Garmin's assertion that my "tenure was marked by frequent absences" is misleading. Data from my ADP paystubs shows a consistent pattern of full-time work. My attendance throughout *-* suffered as a direct result of my disabilities and a hostile work environment fostered by my supervisor. His persistent harassment made it difficult at times to maintain a consistent work schedule. Despite these challenges, I consistently demonstrated exceptional effort, often exceeding the standard full-time schedule. I achieved this while working other jobs, which proves that I excel when I am in a supportive and healthy work environment. My badge swipe data would clearly demonstrate my location during work hours, disproving any suggestion that I was frequently absent from my workstation without cause. Moreover, any instances of extended restroom use were directly related to the inadequacy of restroom facilities in Garmin's warehouse. Garmin's Broader Narrative and Legal Deficiencies: Garmin's response letter downplays the severity of my complaints and misrepresents the nature of the meeting to shield the company from liability. The description of the meeting as "calm and professional" fails to account for the hostile and accusatory nature of Mr. Veenstra's statements, which HR allowed to occur unchecked. Furthermore, Garmin's assertion that I did not raise concerns at various points in time is irrelevant to its legal obligations. Federal law requires employers to investigate complaints of harassment and retaliation regardless of whether the employee formally requests such action. By failing to initiate a formal investigation, Garmin violated its affirmative duty to ensure a workplace free from discrimination and hostility. Impact on the Workplace Environment: The mishandling of the ****anuary * meeting and Garmin's failure to take my complaints seriously perpetuated a hostile work environment. This meeting could have been an opportunity to address my concerns meaningfully, but instead, it facilitated further retaliation. Garmin's failure to follow through with a thorough investigation or take corrective action allowed the harassment to continue, ultimately leading to my wrongful termination on March *, *. This outcome is a far cry from Garmin's stated value of teamwork and respect: "We work as a team with respect for and trust in each other." Instead of working together and showing respect, I was subjected to a hostile environment that ultimately led to my dismissal. III. Legal Implications of Informal Meeting Framing Kansas Hearsay Laws: Framing the meeting as informal does not inherently exclude statements from admissibility under Kansas hearsay laws. The key determinant for admissibility is whether the statements fall under any statutory exceptions to hearsay as outlined in K.S.A. *-*. For example, Mr. Veenstra's accusations against me could be admissible as statements against interest. The formality of the meeting may influence whether statements are considered testimonial or nontestimonial, which affects their treatment under the Confrontation Clause, but it does not directly impact their admissibility under hearsay rules. Employer Liability: An employer's attempt to frame a meeting as informal can impact liability under Kansas law by potentially undermining the seriousness with which the employer addresses known risks or issues, such as those related to negligent retention and supervision or discrimination. While informal meetings may align with the legislative intent to resolve issues amicably, they do not exempt employers from their legal obligations under statutes like the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. The substance of the meeting, rather than its characterization, is crucial in determining liability. IV. Compliance with FMLA and ADA FMLA Requirements: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) entitles eligible employees to up to * weeks of unpaid leave for certain family and medical reasons, with job protection and continuation of health benefits. Employers must ensure that absences covered by FMLA do not accrue points under attendance policies. ADA Requirements: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, which may include additional leave, unless it causes undue hardship. Employers must engage in an interactive process to determine appropriate accommodations and ensure compliance with ADA requirements. V. Wrongful Termination Under Kansas Law Public Policy Violations: Wrongful termination can occur when an employee is discharged for reasons that violate public policy, breach an implied contract, or is discriminatory. In cases involving alleged excessive absenteeism, wrongful termination may be claimed if the absenteeism is related to a protected activity, such as a disability or a work-related injury, and the employer fails to provide reasonable accommodations or retaliates against the employee. Employment-at-Will Doctrine: Kansas generally follows the employment-at-will doctrine, allowing termination for any reason unless exceptions apply, such as public policy violations or implied contracts. Termination due to absenteeism related to a disability may be wrongful if the employer fails to provide reasonable accommodations, as required by K.S.A. *-*. VI. Compiled Hours Record Overall Summary: * * Total Hours: *.* hours * * Total Hours: *,*.* hours * * Total Hours: *,*.* hours * Combined Total Hours (*-*): *,*.* hours Analysis: As demonstrated by this record, I consistently worked full-time hours, averaging over * hours per pay period. Any fluctuations in my attendance were directly related to my disability and the increasingly hostile work environment. This data was compiled from my ADP paystubs, which accurately reflect my hours worked. VII. Delayed Notice of FMLA Exhaustion Following the pattern of disregarding their obligation to inform me about the nature of the meeting, Garmin also failed to provide timely and adequate notice regarding my FMLA leave. This failure not only caused me significant distress and anxiety but also forced me to make hasty decisions about my leave without fully understanding the consequences. On December *, *, Garmin HR informed me I had used *.* hours of FMLA leave, leaving only *.* hours remaining. This afforded minimal time to prepare before exhausting my leave on December *, *, or December *, *. This short notice period directly contradicts Garmin's stated value of open communication and transparency, leaving me feeling blindsided and vulnerable. Under * C.F.R. § *.*(d)(*), employer notices must enable employees to make informed decisions about their leave usage. The limited warning provided by Garmin falls far short of this requirement. In the December *, * email, Andrew Veenstra wrote: "This will use the last of the FMLA." This statement indicates Garmin informed me of my FMLA leave exhaustion on the very day it occurred. Under * C.F.R. § *.*(c)(*), employers must promptly notify employees of FMLA leave usage and remaining entitlement. Notifying me on the day of exhaustion clearly fails to meet the timely notice requirement. * C.F.R. § *.*(c) and (d) establish strict notice requirements, which Garmin blatantly violated. Courts have consistently held that delays in FMLA notifications constitute interference, as seen in Favreau v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. and Downey v. Strain. These cases emphasize that employers must strictly adhere to FMLA regulations, regardless of intent. The question arises whether the December *, December *, and December * communications collectively support a claim of FMLA interference and potentially retaliation. These communications demonstrate: * Untimely FMLA notifications, violating * C.F.R. § *.*(c)(*). * Inadequate communication, denying me a reasonable opportunity to prepare for my exhaustion. * Dismissive tone in the December * email, potentially indicating bad faith or retaliatory animus. It is noteworthy that Garmin disciplined me for a late notification similar to the one they provided regarding my FMLA exhaustion, demonstrating a clear double standard and potentially retaliatory conduct. Even if Garmin argues the failure was unintentional, the outcome should remain the same because the regulations impose a strict duty on employers to provide timely notice, as emphasized in Downey v. Strain. Garmin's blatant disregard for FMLA regulations not only caused me significant hardship but also reveals a troubling pattern of negligence toward employee rights and well-being. VIII. Email Evidence of Mishandling The following email excerpts demonstrate Garmin's mishandling of my complaints and lack of transparency regarding the ****anuary *, * meeting. These emails highlight my ongoing concerns about workplace hostility, anxiety over meeting logistics, and Garmin’s inconsistent approach to my FMLA points and attendance. * Email to HR Detailing Anxiety About the Meeting (****anuary *, *) > From: ****ohn Y > To: Horn, Melinda > Date: Wednesday, ****anuary *, *:* PM > "Andy came up to me and told me we have a meeting at *:* tomorrow with you. I told him that I knew about it and it was the time I thought would work best for everyone. I was feeling anxious at this point. I told him I think we could do things better and it’s a new year. I said I wrote a * page letter about it which is a reference to an Aaliyah song from the 90s about love. He told me I was not articulate enough to do that. This is the continuous unwanted stream of passive aggressiveness I deal with and exactly why I didn’t wanna talk with him beforehand." > * Context & Significance: * Lack of Transparency: This email underscores my confusion and anxiety regarding the forthcoming meeting—no one clarified whether it would be informal or a potential formal complaint forum. * Hostile Environment: Mr. Veenstra’s belittling comment that I was “not articulate enough” to draft a letter exemplifies the ongoing hostility. * HR’s Role: This email explicitly put Ms. Horn on notice about my concerns prior to the meeting. * HR’s Response Confirming Disappointment in Supervisor’s Remarks > From: Horn, Melinda > To: ****ohn Y > Date: Wednesday, ****anuary *, *:* PM > "Thanks for letting me know ****ohn. That is unfortunate that was his response. I’m happy to discuss further if you’d like before we meet with Andy." > * Context & Significance: * Acknowledgment of Improper Conduct: Ms. Horn acknowledges that Mr. Veenstra’s statement was problematic. * Opportunity to Engage: While Ms. Horn offered to talk further, it remains unclear whether this conversation would be merely “informal” or part of a formal complaint process—again underscoring the ambiguity surrounding the meeting. * Email Regarding FMLA Points and Attendance (March *, *) > From: Horn, Melinda > To: ****ohn Y > Date: Friday, March *, *:* PM > "No worries. I just checked and you are sitting at * points so should be good now that you’ve hit your year FMLA mark." > * Context & Significance: * Inconsistent FMLA Administration: Here, HR confirms my FMLA-related “points” have reset or been adjusted, which is inconsistent with earlier accusations that I was frequently absent. * Relevance to Retaliation: If Garmin used attendance points to justify discipline or termination despite acknowledging that I had FMLA protection, this is further evidence of possible FMLA interference or retaliation under * U.S.C. § *(a). This inconsistency raises questions about the veracity of Garmin's claims and their motives for termination. * Your Follow-Up (March *, *) > From: ****ohn Y > To: Horn, Melinda > Date: Friday, March * (Time Stamp in Email) > "Sorry again to just dump all of that on you! I tend to information dump things that have been built up in my head and it all comes out at once. I tend to overthink things and my …" > * Context & Significance: * Ongoing Stress: This message reflects my heightened anxiety and the stress I was under in trying to balance work responsibilities, interpersonal conflicts, and FMLA concerns. * Continued Communication: Despite my repeated attempts to keep HR informed, Garmin ultimately failed to prevent escalating retaliation and a hostile environment, culminating in my wrongful termination on March *, *. * “Articulate” Clarification > From: ****ohn Y > To: Horn, Melinda > Date: Wednesday, ****anuary * (Shortly After *:* PM) > "Maybe he’s not wrong. I meant ‘Articulate.’" > * Context & Significance: * Admission vs. Sarcasm: This line could be read as a self-deprecating or sarcastic remark. Either way, it underscores the awkward and tense dynamic between me and my supervisor—where I even felt compelled to second-guess my own communication abilities because of his comment. How These Emails Strengthen My Claims * Failure to Inform About Meeting Formality * These emails reflect that I learned of the ****anuary * meeting from Andy, not from a clear, formal directive by HR. HR never clarified the nature of the meeting (formal complaint vs. informal chat), undermining my ability to protect my rights under Title VII and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. * Evidence of a Hostile and Retaliatory Environment * Mr. Veenstra’s disparaging remark about my ability to articulate myself, coupled with ongoing passive-aggressive behavior, underscores a persistent hostile environment. * HR's acknowledgment that Mr. Veenstra's comment was "unfortunate" did not lead to any meaningful remedial action, allowing the hostile environment to persist. * Inconsistency in FMLA Administration * The email from Ms. Horn on March *, *, showing I had * points, conflicts with Garmin’s portrayal of my absenteeism as excessive and constant. * Delayed or inconsistent notice of my FMLA status aligns with my broader claims of FMLA interference and retaliatory conduct. * Documentation of Emotional Distress * My own words confirm the anxiety, overthinking, and stress I experienced while trying to balance work responsibilities, interpersonal conflicts, and FMLA concerns. This can be relevant to damages for emotional distress or other relief in a wrongful termination or retaliation claim. Conclusion These emails further corroborate my position that Garmin failed to provide a formal and transparent process for resolving my concerns about harassment, retaliation, and FMLA mismanagement. Although Ms. Horn’s responses show occasional sympathy or acknowledgment of inappropriate behavior, no substantive investigation or corrective action appears to have taken place, thereby permitting the hostile environment to persist. Ultimately, these communications support my assertion that Garmin: * Neglected to Clarify the formal nature of the ****anuary *, * meeting, depriving me of a meaningful opportunity to lodge a formal complaint. * Failed to Investigate or remedy the ongoing aggression and unprofessional conduct by my supervisor. * Mismanaged FMLA records in ways that both added to my anxiety and potentially violated federal regulations. Taken together, these emails are crucial evidence demonstrating how a pattern of ambiguity, inconsistency, and improper handling of complaints created a hostile work environment—culminating in my wrongful termination on March *, *. IX. Conclusion The ****anuary *, * meeting, far from being the "calm and professional" resolution Garmin portrays, was a missed opportunity to address my legitimate concerns and constituted a critical failure in Garmin's responsibility to its employees. Instead of fostering a safe and equitable workplace, the meeting became another instance of mishandling, mischaracterization, and ultimately, retaliation. Garmin's failure to acknowledge the true nature of this meeting, coupled with their disregard for their legal obligations under the FMLA, ADA, and Kansas employment law, created a hostile work environment that ultimately culminated in my wrongful termination. Such disregard for employee rights and well-being undermines the principles of a fair and just workplace. I trust that the evidence presented will clearly demonstrate the injustices I faced and lead to appropriate remedies for the damages incurred, including, but not limited to, reinstatement, back pay, and compensation for emotional distress. Furthermore, I urge Garmin to re-evaluate its internal processes for handling employee complaints to ensure that such violations do not reoccur and that all employees are afforded the respect and protections they deserve.
Hello ****,
Your detailed statement is well-crafted and comprehensively addresses key legal points. Here are some concise suggestions to enhance your argument:
- **Late FMLA Notice**:
- Emphasize Garmin’s failure to provide timely notice of FMLA exhaustion, resulting in your inability to plan accordingly and accruing attendance points.
- **Backdated ADA Accommodation**:
- Highlight Garmin’s neglect to remove attendance points despite backdating your ADA accommodation, exacerbating your situation and contributing to the hostile work environment.
Would you like further assistance with any other aspects of your statement?
Ok
Hello ****,
Thank you for confirming. Your statement is already quite comprehensive. Here are a few additional tips:
- **Specific Legal Citations**: Make sure to include relevant legal citations for added credibility.
- **Chronological Clarity**: Ensure events are presented in a clear timeline to illustrate the sequence of issues.
- **Impact on Well-being**: Emphasize how these actions affected your health and work environment.
Would you need help with any other specific parts?
Suhgest citations
Hello ****,
Here are some suggested legal citations to strengthen your statement:
- **Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)**:
- * U.S.C. § *(b)(*)(A): Requires reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities.
- * C.F.R. § *.*(o)(*): Details the interactive process for accommodations.
- * U.S.C. § *(b)(*) and (b)(*): Prohibits practices that have a discriminatory effect.
- **Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)**:
- * U.S.C. § *: Prohibits interference with FMLA rights.
- * C.F.R. §§ *.*–*.*: Outlines employer notice obligations under the FMLA.
- **Kansas Act Against Discrimination**:
- K.S.A. *-* et seq.: Prohibits employment discrimination based on disability.
- **Precedent Case**:
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co., * U.S. * (*): Establishes that facially neutral policies may violate the law if they disproportionately affect a protected group.
-
Analyze I. Failure to Inform About the Nature of the Meeting On ****anuary *, *, HR hosted a meeting with me and my supervisor, Andy Veenstra, ostensibly to address ongoing concerns about harassment and a hostile work environment. However, I was not informed of the meeting's formality or its potential impact on my complaints. This lack of transparency is directly at odds with Garmin's stated value of open communication. Instead of fostering trust and understanding, the lack of clarity about the meeting's purpose and potential consequences left me feeling vulnerable and uninformed. No Clarification on Formal vs. Informal Nature: HR did not ask me if I wanted my complaints addressed formally or informally, leaving me unaware of the potential consequences of how the meeting would be treated. Had I been given the option, I would have chosen a formal complaint process. By failing to clarify the meeting's nature, HR denied me the opportunity to ensure my concerns were escalated and properly documented. HR's Responsibility to Determine Severity: Melinda Horn, as the HR representative, held the authority and responsibility to assess the severity of my complaints. Given the allegations of harassment, retaliation, and hostile work environment, Melinda should have escalated the matter as a formal complaint under Garmin's policies and federal law. Failing to classify my complaints appropriately constitutes negligence in HR's duty to act as a neutral arbiter and protect employees from unlawful behavior. This inaction contradicts Garmin's stated "commitment to accountability." In this instance, Garmin failed to be accountable to me, their employee, by not taking my complaints seriously and not responding appropriately. II. Analysis of Garmin's Depiction of the Meeting Garmin's response misrepresents the ****anuary *, * meeting as a professional and collaborative effort aimed at resolving workplace tensions between me and my supervisor, Andy. Specifically, Garmin states: "HR hosted a meeting between Mr. Young and Mr. Veenstra where both parties discussed how to work together and the comments made between them. Mr. Veenstra stated that he did not realize his actions or comments were hurtful, but he apologized to Mr. Young regardless. Mr. Young responded by thanking Mr. Veenstra for the apology. The meeting was calm and professional." This narrative is misleading and omits critical context that highlights the mishandling of my complaints and the continuation of retaliatory behavior. This sanitized version of events clashes with Garmin's claims of truthfulness, integrity, and respect in its communication and company values. Their response letter, by misrepresenting the meeting and downplaying my concerns, deviates from these core principles. Failure to Accurately Represent the Meeting's Tone and Purpose: Garmin's description frames the meeting as a productive discussion between equals; however, the meeting failed to address my substantive complaints of harassment and retaliation. The claim that I thanked Andy for his apology is questionable. To my recollection, no apology was made during this meeting, nor was there any genuine acknowledgment of the harm caused by Andy's prior behavior. Role of Retaliation in the Meeting: The accusations made by Mr. Veenstra during the meeting constitute retaliation under the law. By shifting the focus to alleged workplace misconduct on my part, the meeting became a forum for further intimidation rather than addressing my concerns of harassment and a hostile work environment. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, retaliation occurs when an employer subjects an employee to adverse actions for asserting their legal rights. In this case, Mr. Veenstra's accusations—unsupported and unverified—were a direct response to my prior protected complaints about his conduct and furthered a hostile work environment. This retaliatory behavior directly contradicts Garmin's stated policy: "Garmin does not allow retaliation against associates who in good faith report concerns under this code." Instead of being protected for raising concerns, I faced further hostility and ultimately termination. Baseless Accusations of Absenteeism: Garmin's assertion that my "tenure was marked by frequent absences" is misleading. Data from my ADP paystubs shows a consistent pattern of full-time work. My attendance throughout *-* suffered as a direct result of my disabilities and a hostile work environment fostered by my supervisor. His persistent harassment made it difficult at times to maintain a consistent work schedule. Despite these challenges, I consistently demonstrated exceptional effort, often exceeding the standard full-time schedule. I achieved this while working other jobs, which proves that I excel when I am in a supportive and healthy work environment. My badge swipe data would clearly demonstrate my location during work hours, disproving any suggestion that I was frequently absent from my workstation without cause. Moreover, any instances of extended restroom use were directly related to the inadequacy of restroom facilities in Garmin's warehouse. Garmin's Broader Narrative and Legal Deficiencies: Garmin's response letter downplays the severity of my complaints and misrepresents the nature of the meeting to shield the company from liability. The description of the meeting as "calm and professional" fails to account for the hostile and accusatory nature of Mr. Veenstra's statements, which HR allowed to occur unchecked. Furthermore, Garmin's assertion that I did not raise concerns at various points in time is irrelevant to its legal obligations. Federal law requires employers to investigate complaints of harassment and retaliation regardless of whether the employee formally requests such action. By failing to initiate a formal investigation, Garmin violated its affirmative duty to ensure a workplace free from discrimination and hostility. Impact on the Workplace Environment: The mishandling of the ****anuary * meeting and Garmin's failure to take my complaints seriously perpetuated a hostile work environment. This meeting could have been an opportunity to address my concerns meaningfully, but instead, it facilitated further retaliation. Garmin's failure to follow through with a thorough investigation or take corrective action allowed the harassment to continue, ultimately leading to my wrongful termination on March *, *. This outcome is a far cry from Garmin's stated value of teamwork and respect: "We work as a team with respect for and trust in each other." Instead of working together and showing respect, I was subjected to a hostile environment that ultimately led to my dismissal. III. Legal Implications of Informal Meeting Framing Kansas Hearsay Laws: Framing the meeting as informal does not inherently exclude statements from admissibility under Kansas hearsay laws. The key determinant for admissibility is whether the statements fall under any statutory exceptions to hearsay as outlined in K.S.A. *-*. For example, Mr. Veenstra's accusations against me could be admissible as statements against interest. The formality of the meeting may influence whether statements are considered testimonial or nontestimonial, which affects their treatment under the Confrontation Clause, but it does not directly impact their admissibility under hearsay rules. Employer Liability: An employer's attempt to frame a meeting as informal can impact liability under Kansas law by potentially undermining the seriousness with which the employer addresses known risks or issues, such as those related to negligent retention and supervision or discrimination. While informal meetings may align with the legislative intent to resolve issues amicably, they do not exempt employers from their legal obligations under statutes like the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. The substance of the meeting, rather than its characterization, is crucial in determining liability. IV. Compliance with FMLA and ADA FMLA Requirements: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) entitles eligible employees to up to * weeks of unpaid leave for certain family and medical reasons, with job protection and continuation of health benefits. Employers must ensure that absences covered by FMLA do not accrue points under attendance policies. ADA Requirements: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, which may include additional leave, unless it causes undue hardship. Employers must engage in an interactive process to determine appropriate accommodations and ensure compliance with ADA requirements. V. Wrongful Termination Under Kansas Law Public Policy Violations: Wrongful termination can occur when an employee is discharged for reasons that violate public policy, breach an implied contract, or is discriminatory. In cases involving alleged excessive absenteeism, wrongful termination may be claimed if the absenteeism is related to a protected activity, such as a disability or a work-related injury, and the employer fails to provide reasonable accommodations or retaliates against the employee. Employment-at-Will Doctrine: Kansas generally follows the employment-at-will doctrine, allowing termination for any reason unless exceptions apply, such as public policy violations or implied contracts. Termination due to absenteeism related to a disability may be wrongful if the employer fails to provide reasonable accommodations, as required by K.S.A. *-*. VI. Compiled Hours Record Overall Summary: * * Total Hours: *.* hours * * Total Hours: *,*.* hours * * Total Hours: *,*.* hours * Combined Total Hours (*-*): *,*.* hours Analysis: As demonstrated by this record, I consistently worked full-time hours, averaging over * hours per pay period. Any fluctuations in my attendance were directly related to my disability and the increasingly hostile work environment. This data was compiled from my ADP paystubs, which accurately reflect my hours worked. VII. Delayed Notice of FMLA Exhaustion Following the pattern of disregarding their obligation to inform me about the nature of the meeting, Garmin also failed to provide timely and adequate notice regarding my FMLA leave. This failure not only caused me significant distress and anxiety but also forced me to make hasty decisions about my leave without fully understanding the consequences. On December *, *, Garmin HR informed me I had used *.* hours of FMLA leave, leaving only *.* hours remaining. This afforded minimal time to prepare before exhausting my leave on December *, *, or December *, *. This short notice period directly contradicts Garmin's stated value of open communication and transparency, leaving me feeling blindsided and vulnerable. Under * C.F.R. § *.*(d)(*), employer notices must enable employees to make informed decisions about their leave usage. The limited warning provided by Garmin falls far short of this requirement. In the December *, * email, Andrew Veenstra wrote: "This will use the last of the FMLA." This statement indicates Garmin informed me of my FMLA leave exhaustion on the very day it occurred. Under * C.F.R. § *.*(c)(*), employers must promptly notify employees of FMLA leave usage and remaining entitlement. Notifying me on the day of exhaustion clearly fails to meet the timely notice requirement. * C.F.R. § *.*(c) and (d) establish strict notice requirements, which Garmin blatantly violated. Courts have consistently held that delays in FMLA notifications constitute interference, as seen in Favreau v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. and Downey v. Strain. These cases emphasize that employers must strictly adhere to FMLA regulations, regardless of intent. The question arises whether the December *, December *, and December * communications collectively support a claim of FMLA interference and potentially retaliation. These communications demonstrate: * Untimely FMLA notifications, violating * C.F.R. § *.*(c)(*). * Inadequate communication, denying me a reasonable opportunity to prepare for my exhaustion. * Dismissive tone in the December * email, potentially indicating bad faith or retaliatory animus. It is noteworthy that Garmin disciplined me for a late notification similar to the one they provided regarding my FMLA exhaustion, demonstrating a clear double standard and potentially retaliatory conduct. Even if Garmin argues the failure was unintentional, the outcome should remain the same because the regulations impose a strict duty on employers to provide timely notice, as emphasized in Downey v. Strain. Garmin's blatant disregard for FMLA regulations not only caused me significant hardship but also reveals a troubling pattern of negligence toward employee rights and well-being. VIII. Email Evidence of Mishandling The following email excerpts demonstrate Garmin's mishandling of my complaints and lack of transparency regarding the ****anuary *, * meeting. These emails highlight my ongoing concerns about workplace hostility, anxiety over meeting logistics, and Garmin’s inconsistent approach to my FMLA points and attendance. * Email to HR Detailing Anxiety About the Meeting (****anuary *, *) > From: ****ohn Y > To: Horn, Melinda > Date: Wednesday, ****anuary *, *:* PM > "Andy came up to me and told me we have a meeting at *:* tomorrow with you. I told him that I knew about it and it was the time I thought would work best for everyone. I was feeling anxious at this point. I told him I think we could do things better and it’s a new year. I said I wrote a * page letter about it which is a reference to an Aaliyah song from the 90s about love. He told me I was not articulate enough to do that. This is the continuous unwanted stream of passive aggressiveness I deal with and exactly why I didn’t wanna talk with him beforehand." > * Context & Significance: * Lack of Transparency: This email underscores my confusion and anxiety regarding the forthcoming meeting—no one clarified whether it would be informal or a potential formal complaint forum. * Hostile Environment: Mr. Veenstra’s belittling comment that I was “not articulate enough” to draft a letter exemplifies the ongoing hostility. * HR’s Role: This email explicitly put Ms. Horn on notice about my concerns prior to the meeting. * HR’s Response Confirming Disappointment in Supervisor’s Remarks > From: Horn, Melinda > To: ****ohn Y > Date: Wednesday, ****anuary *, *:* PM > "Thanks for letting me know ****ohn. That is unfortunate that was his response. I’m happy to discuss further if you’d like before we meet with Andy." > * Context & Significance: * Acknowledgment of Improper Conduct: Ms. Horn acknowledges that Mr. Veenstra’s statement was problematic. * Opportunity to Engage: While Ms. Horn offered to talk further, it remains unclear whether this conversation would be merely “informal” or part of a formal complaint process—again underscoring the ambiguity surrounding the meeting. * Email Regarding FMLA Points and Attendance (March *, *) > From: Horn, Melinda > To: ****ohn Y > Date: Friday, March *, *:* PM > "No worries. I just checked and you are sitting at * points so should be good now that you’ve hit your year FMLA mark." > * Context & Significance: * Inconsistent FMLA Administration: Here, HR confirms my FMLA-related “points” have reset or been adjusted, which is inconsistent with earlier accusations that I was frequently absent. * Relevance to Retaliation: If Garmin used attendance points to justify discipline or termination despite acknowledging that I had FMLA protection, this is further evidence of possible FMLA interference or retaliation under * U.S.C. § *(a). This inconsistency raises questions about the veracity of Garmin's claims and their motives for termination. * Your Follow-Up (March *, *) > From: ****ohn Y > To: Horn, Melinda > Date: Friday, March * (Time Stamp in Email) > "Sorry again to just dump all of that on you! I tend to information dump things that have been built up in my head and it all comes out at once. I tend to overthink things and my …" > * Context & Significance: * Ongoing Stress: This message reflects my heightened anxiety and the stress I was under in trying to balance work responsibilities, interpersonal conflicts, and FMLA concerns. * Continued Communication: Despite my repeated attempts to keep HR informed, Garmin ultimately failed to prevent escalating retaliation and a hostile environment, culminating in my wrongful termination on March *, *. * “Articulate” Clarification > From: ****ohn Y > To: Horn, Melinda > Date: Wednesday, ****anuary * (Shortly After *:* PM) > "Maybe he’s not wrong. I meant ‘Articulate.’" > * Context & Significance: * Admission vs. Sarcasm: This line could be read as a self-deprecating or sarcastic remark. Either way, it underscores the awkward and tense dynamic between me and my supervisor—where I even felt compelled to second-guess my own communication abilities because of his comment. How These Emails Strengthen My Claims * Failure to Inform About Meeting Formality * These emails reflect that I learned of the ****anuary * meeting from Andy, not from a clear, formal directive by HR. HR never clarified the nature of the meeting (formal complaint vs. informal chat), undermining my ability to protect my rights under Title VII and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. * Evidence of a Hostile and Retaliatory Environment * Mr. Veenstra’s disparaging remark about my ability to articulate myself, coupled with ongoing passive-aggressive behavior, underscores a persistent hostile environment. * HR's acknowledgment that Mr. Veenstra's comment was "unfortunate" did not lead to any meaningful remedial action, allowing the hostile environment to persist. * Inconsistency in FMLA Administration * The email from Ms. Horn on March *, *, showing I had * points, conflicts with Garmin’s portrayal of my absenteeism as excessive and constant. * Delayed or inconsistent notice of my FMLA status aligns with my broader claims of FMLA interference and retaliatory conduct. * Documentation of Emotional Distress * My own words confirm the anxiety, overthinking, and stress I experienced while trying to balance work responsibilities, interpersonal conflicts, and FMLA concerns. This can be relevant to damages for emotional distress or other relief in a wrongful termination or retaliation claim. Conclusion These emails further corroborate my position that Garmin failed to provide a formal and transparent process for resolving my concerns about harassment, retaliation, and FMLA mismanagement. Although Ms. Horn’s responses show occasional sympathy or acknowledgment of inappropriate behavior, no substantive investigation or corrective action appears to have taken place, thereby permitting the hostile environment to persist. Ultimately, these communications support my assertion that Garmin: * Neglected to Clarify the formal nature of the ****anuary *, * meeting, depriving me of a meaningful opportunity to lodge a formal complaint. * Failed to Investigate or remedy the ongoing aggression and unprofessional conduct by my supervisor. * Mismanaged FMLA records in ways that both added to my anxiety and potentially violated federal regulations. Taken together, these emails are crucial evidence demonstrating how a pattern of ambiguity, inconsistency, and improper handling of complaints created a hostile work environment—culminating in my wrongful termination on March *, *. IX. Conclusion The ****anuary *, * meeting, far from being the "calm and professional" resolution Garmin portrays, was a missed opportunity to address my legitimate concerns and constituted a critical failure in Garmin's responsibility to its employees. Instead of fostering a safe and equitable workplace, the meeting became another instance of mishandling, mischaracterization, and ultimately, retaliation. Garmin's failure to acknowledge the true nature of this meeting, coupled with their disregard for their legal obligations under the FMLA, ADA, and Kansas employment law, created a hostile work environment that ultimately culminated in my wrongful termination. Such disregard for employee rights and well-being undermines the principles of a fair and just workplace. I trust that the evidence presented will clearly demonstrate the injustices I faced and lead to appropriate remedies for the damages incurred, including, but not limited to, reinstatement, back pay, and compensation for emotional distress. Furthermore, I urge Garmin to re-evaluate its internal processes for handling employee complaints to ensure that such violations do not reoccur and that all employees are afforded the respect and protections they deserve.
Hello ****,
Your statement is detailed and well-structured. Here are some suggestions for integrating the legal citations and enhancing your argument:
I. Failure to Inform About the Nature of the Meeting
- **No Clarification on Formal vs. Informal Nature**:
- Under **Title VII of the Civil Rights Act** and **Kansas Act Against Discrimination (K.S.A. *-* et seq.)**, employees have the right to be informed about the nature of meetings addressing discrimination complaints.
- **HR's Responsibility to Determine Severity**:
- The obligation to assess and escalate complaints is mandated under *** U.S.C. § *(b)(*)(A)** (ADA) and relevant federal employment laws.
II. Analysis of Garmin's Depiction of the Meeting
- **Failure to Accurately Represent the Meeting's Tone and Purpose**:
- Misrepresentation of such meetings can constitute a breach of **Title VII** and **Kansas Act Against Discrimination** obligations.
- **Role of Retaliation in the Meeting**:
- Retaliation for asserting legal rights is prohibited under *** U.S.C. § 2000e-*(a)** (Title VII) and *** U.S.C. §
Did they have to notify me of the formality
Hello ****,
Employers are generally expected to inform employees about the nature of meetings related to complaints, particularly in cases involving potential discrimination or harassment. Here are some points to consider:
- **Notification Requirement**: Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (K.S.A. *-* et seq.), employees should be informed about the nature and potential consequences of meetings addressing their complaints.
- **HR's Responsibility**: HR is responsible for assessing the severity of complaints and ensuring that employees understand whether their concerns are being addressed formally or informally, as mandated by * U.S.C. § *(b)(*)(A) (ADA).
Would you like further assistance with any other aspects of your statement?
This follows our call with your office on Monday, ****uly *. We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated ****uly *, *, concerning ****ohn Young’s claims against Garmin International, Inc. (“Garmin”). Please note that all further correspondence regarding this matter should be directed to the undersigned.Garmin acknowledges its obligation to preserve relevant records and will ensure that all pertinent documents, emails, and electronic data related to Mr. Young’s employment and the claims raised are retained. Similarly, we request that Mr. Young also preserve all documents, emails, text messages, and other electronic data relevant to his employment and the claims he has raised.We take the claims raised in your letter seriously and have conducted an initial review of Mr. Young’s employment records and the circumstances surrounding his termination. Below, we address the allegations outlined in your correspondence and provide pertinent details from our records. Mr. Young was employed with Garmin from ****une * until his termination on March *, *. As an initial matter, we challenge the assertion that Mr. Young's attendance issues began only after he started working under Mr. Andrew Veenstra. Mr. Young's tenure was replete with attendance problems, including a Final Written Warning for Attendance issued in *. Mr. Young’s attendance from * until his termination was quite poor. Mr. Young was approved for intermittent FMLA leave from March *, * through March *, *. This grant of protected leave provided Mr. Young with an exception from the standard Attendance Policy at Garmin, whereby any leave under the FMLA leave grant would not count towards points under Garmin’s Attendance Policy (Exhibit A). Despite this, between ****anuary *, *, and November *, *, Mr. Young accrued * attendance points, was tardy * times, and had *.* hours of unpaid time off, alongside *.* hours of unscheduled PTO. This warranted corrective action of a Final Written Warning in October *. Garmin later retracted this second FWW based on Mr. Young’s statement that his No Call No Show(s) - which would have given him * attendance points - were because of ‘episodic events’ where he was unable to call in as required. Garmin opted to credit Mr. Young for these and withdrew the FWW with the admonition that he must comply with the Attendance Policy. This grace would go unheeded by Mr. Young.In his Fall * Annual Performance Review, his supervisor Mr. Veenstra noted Mr. Young’s attendance issues: “Between */*/* and */*/* ****ohn: accrued * attendance points. had *.* hours of unpaid time off and *.* hours of unscheduled PTO. was tardy * times. worked *.* hours of OT. ****ohn needs to work on his attendance and managing his PTO.” Exhibit B. Though Mr. Young had the opportunity to address this admonition, he chose not to do so. Mr. Young was notified by HR on December *, * that he had used *.* hours of FMLA timesince March * and was about to hit his full * hour leave usage. In addition, he was notifiedthat he would not be eligible for additional FMLA protected leave until March *, *. Mr. Young acknowledged this notification on December *, *. Mr. Young exhausted his FMLA hours on December *, *.On ****anuary *, *, Mr. Young requested additional protected leave under the ADA. His request was approved on ****anuary *, * and was approved retroactively to December *, *. Mr. Young was notified that his ADA accommodation for protected leave would expire on March *, * for one occurrence per week, lasting up to * hours per occurrence based on the recommendation of his medical professional and as requested by Mr. Young. This protected leave would not count against Garmin’s Attendance PolicyNotwithstanding the ADA accommodation of additional protected leave, Mr. Young continued to fail to regularly attend work and remain at work for his entire shift. Between ****anuary *, * and February *, Mr. Young accrued * attendance points. He was tardy * times, left early * times, had *.* hours of unpaid time off, and utilized *.* hours of unscheduled PTO. We note that this did not include any time approved as ADA accommodation time. On February *, *, Garmin had no choice but to issue yet another Final Written Warning to Mr. Young for attendance. Exhibit C. Mr. Young signed with no objections. When he received this FWW, Mr. Young did not indicate his failure to comply with the Attendance Policy was due to reasons covered by his ADA accommodation time. Mr. Young gave no notice or indication to Garmin that he wished to request additional time off or further engage in the interactive process -a process with which he was already familiar. While these attendance issues were ongoing, on February *, *, Garmin initiated a new FMLA case for Mr. Young for the period of March *, * to March *, *. The necessary paperwork was completed and approved by March *, *, allowing five occurrences every month, lasting up to * hours per occurrence, as recommended by his healthcare provider and as requested by Mr. Young.After Mr. Young’s Final Written Warning on February *, *, Mr. Young’s attendance in the next month (excluding ADA accommodation time) was equally poor. Between February *, * and March *, *, he was tardy * times, left early * times, had *.* hours of unpaid time off, and utilized * hours of unscheduled PTO. Mr. Young hit * points – and termination – on March *, *. He hit * points on March *. See attached Attendance Points (Exhibit D). Regretfully, on March *, *, Mr. Young was terminated due to excessive absenteeism. Mr. Young stated to the HR team that he both understood and accepted the decision to terminate his employment.Though unrelated to the termination of Mr. Young, we do write briefly to address the unsubstantiated and wildly inaccurate claims about his dealings with his supervisor, Mr. Veenstra. We acknowledge that on ****anuary *, *, Mr. Young requested a meeting with HR’s Mindy Horn and Mr. Veenstra to discuss their working relationship. On ****anuary *, *, HR hosted a meeting between Mr. Young and Mr. Veenstra where both parties discussed how to work togetherand the comments made between them. Mr. Veenstra stated that he did not realize his actions or comments were hurtful, but he apologized to Mr. Young regardless. Mr. Young responded by thanking Mr. Veenstra for the apology. The meeting was calm and professional. Moreover, after this meeting with HR, HR representative Mindy Horn saw Mr. Young several times and asked how things were going, to which he replied, “all is fine.” Notwithstanding this one inquiry and discussion, these after the fact concerns ring quite hollow particularly given your client never a) filed a discrimination complaint with Human Resources; b) noted any concerns on his annual reviews; c) raised them when presented with his Final Written Warnings; d) filed a complaint with anyone above Mr. Veenstra; e) filed a complaint with a peer of Mr. Veenstra; f) filed a complaint with the legal department; g) used Garmin’s anonymous complaint line – Ethicspoint; h) raised it during his termination meeting; i) raised it in his request for FMLA time; and j) raised it in his request for an accommodation under the ADA. In short, Garmin never heard these complaints, which is telling if Mr. Young is stating that a reason he could not get to work is because of comments made by Mr. Veenstra.Suffice it to say, Garmin provided Mr. Young with protected leave that far exceeded what the law requires. It granted him *% of the FMLA leave he sought in the way he sought it. It then granted him additional leave under the ADA. Despite this, he was unable to regularly attend work.He was terminated for violations of the Attendance Policy administered by the HR team.We are open to discussing a potential resolution but are not sure how the parties could reach one. Garmin does not believe it could agree to bring Mr. Young back to work at Garmin given his inability, despite repeated warnings, to work a reliable and predictable schedule. We understand if you feel that you must proceed otherwise.Sincerely,/s/ Leah LewsaderLeah LewsaderCounsel – Immigration and Employment..... Soes his apology admit guilt
Hello ****,
An apology from a supervisor does not automatically admit legal guilt. However, it can be relevant in demonstrating acknowledgment of inappropriate behavior, which may support your claims. Here are some key points:
- **Apology Context**: An apology indicates recognition of conduct that may have been inappropriate or harmful.
- **Legal Relevance**: It can be used to show the supervisor was aware of the issues, potentially supporting your case of a hostile work environment.
Would you like further assistance with your mediation statement or any other aspect of your legal issue?
Yes. Amd why is Garmin putting emphasis on formality
Hello ****,
Garmin is emphasizing the formality to:
- **Downplay Severity**: By framing interactions as informal, they may argue that they were not aware of the seriousness of your complaints.
- **Mitigate Liability**: Formal complaints necessitate documented responses and formal investigations, which can be used as evidence in legal proceedings.
- **Control the Narrative**: Presenting the issues as informal or minor helps them control the narrative and reduce perceived accountability.
Would you like more specific guidance on how to counter this emphasis in your mediation statement or any other assistance?
Yes
Hello ****,
To counter Garmin's emphasis on formality, you can highlight the following points in your mediation statement:
~I. Failure to Inform About the Nature of the Meeting~##
- **Lack of Transparency**: Stress that Garmin's failure to clarify whether the ****anuary *, *, meeting was formal or informal deprived you of the opportunity to ensure your complaints were properly documented and addressed.
- **Employer's Duty**: Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (K.S.A. *-* et seq.), employers have a duty to inform employees about the nature and implications of meetings addressing discrimination complaints.
- **HR's Responsibility**: Emphasize that HR's role is to assess the severity of complaints and ensure employees understand their rights and the nature of the meeting, as mandated by * U.S.C. § *(b)(*)(A) (ADA).
~II. Analysis of Garmin's Depiction of the Meeting~##
- **Misrepresentation**: Argue that Garmin's portrayal of the meeting as informal and professional downplays the severity of your complaints and the hostile work environment.
- **Acknowledgment of Issues**: Highlight the supervisor's apology as an acknowledgment of
## EEOC Mediation Statement and Comprehensive Claim Documentation ### Executive Summary This statement outlines systematic discrimination and retaliation I experienced at Garmin from ****une *, * to March *, *, violating my rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Throughout my tenure, Garmin failed to accommodate my medical conditions, fostered a hostile work environment through my supervisor's harassment, and retaliated against me for asserting my legal rights. These actions culminated in my wrongful termination, which occurred the day before my FMLA renewal. I seek reinstatement, compensation for lost wages and emotional distress, punitive damages, policy reforms at Garmin, and reimbursement of legal fees. ### Section *: Introduction and Factual Background Over the course of nearly eight years at Garmin, I consistently demonstrated strong performance and growth, packing and testing over *,* units—far more than anyone else in the company's history. My total compensation, including salary, stock, and *(k) contributions, rose from $*,*.* in * to $*,*.* in *. This progression reflects Garmin's recognition of my commitment and significant contributions. Despite this, Garmin's response to my documented medical conditions exposed systemic failures, creating a hostile work environment, denying me reasonable accommodations, and culminating in my wrongful termination. In March *, I provided Garmin with formal medical documentation diagnosing me with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, PTSD, and ADHD. I requested accommodations as mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and invoked my rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which guaranteed me protected leave for my medical conditions. Instead of engaging meaningfully in the interactive process or ensuring proper administration of FMLA leave, Garmin failed to support my medical needs. The situation was exacerbated by my supervisor, Andy Veenstra, whose behavior escalated from dismissive to overtly hostile. His harassment included deeply personal and demeaning comments, such as: • "You shouldn't have been able to have kids in the first place," mocking both my disabilities and my role as a parent. • "I'm sure they feel the same way about your FMLA," comparing my use of protected medical leave to employee time theft. These statements, combined with Veenstra's ongoing conduct, created a hostile work environment that compounded the challenges of managing my medical conditions. Despite my efforts to address Veenstra's behavior directly and "informally"—by Garmin's own standards—report it to Human Resources, my concerns were dismissed as "unsubstantiated" and ignored. Garmin's subsequent response in legal correspondence went further, labeling my claims as "wildly inaccurate," demonstrating a continued lack of accountability. In addition to creating and fostering this hostile environment, Garmin failed to properly administer my FMLA leave, resulting in miscalculations of protected hours and the application of attendance penalties in direct violation of federal law. These errors, combined with the lack of ADA accommodations, significantly exacerbated my medical conditions and undermined my ability to perform my job effectively. Garmin's conduct violated the ADA, FMLA, and applicable state labor laws, as well as the principles of respect and integrity outlined in its own policies. This systemic disregard for legal and ethical obligations directly contributed to the deterioration of my health and my eventual wrongful termination on March *, *. ### Section *: Hostile Work Environment and Harassment During my time at Garmin, the actions of my supervisor, Andy Veenstra, created a pervasive and hostile work environment. His repeated harassment escalated over time, exacerbating my pre-existing medical conditions and undermining my ability to work effectively. #### Examples of Harassment *. **Demeaning Personal Comments**: Veenstra made cruel and personal remarks about my medical conditions and family. For example, he stated, "You shouldn't have been able to have kids in the first place," directly attacking my role as a parent and my right to family life. This comment not only mocked my disabilities but was intended to demean and humiliate me in front of others. *. **Comparison of FMLA Leave to Time Theft**: On another occasion, Veenstra sarcastically remarked, "I'm sure they feel the same way about your FMLA," comparing my lawful use of protected medical leave to theft. This statement was emblematic of a broader pattern of hostility toward my exercise of legal rights under FMLA. *. **General Disregard for My Health**: Veenstra exhibited a consistent lack of empathy and understanding for my medical conditions, refusing to accommodate even basic needs and treating my efforts to balance work and health as a personal inconvenience. #### HR's Failure to Address the Hostile Environment Despite Garmin's stated policies on workplace respect and inclusion, my repeated attempts to address Veenstra's behavior went unheeded. I brought these issues to HR "informally," as defined by Garmin's own standards, yet my concerns were deemed "unsubstantiated" and ignored. No meaningful steps were taken to investigate or correct the behavior. #### Impact of the Hostile Work Environment The unchecked harassment significantly worsened my medical conditions, creating an atmosphere of anxiety and fear that made it increasingly difficult to perform my job duties. Instead of taking corrective action, Garmin allowed Veenstra's behavior to continue, fostering a toxic workplace that ultimately forced me out of my role. ### Section *: Contrasting HR Responses In August *, I experienced a positive example of Garmin's potential to act in good faith. HR representative Stephanie Prell demonstrated genuine care and provided proactive support during a challenging time. Her actions enabled me to recover and return to work effectively. However, this approach shifted dramatically in * and *, when I encountered resistance, delays, and lack of communication regarding ADA accommodations and FMLA leave. This inconsistency in treatment underscores Garmin's failure to uphold its obligations under the ADA and FMLA. #### Positive HR Experience in * In August *, I faced difficulties due to my medical conditions affecting my attendance that included a FWW and my raise removed. Stephanie Prell, an HR representative, exemplified how Garmin could effectively support employees in need. Stephanie proactively reached out to guide me through the FMLA process, ensured that my time off was correctly coded, and offered continuous communication throughout my leave. **Email Example *: Stephanie's Guidance on FMLA Leave** On August *, *, Stephanie emailed me with clear instructions on how to use my FMLA leave and assured me that she would communicate with my supervisor to ensure a smooth process. > From: Stephanie Prell > Sent: Monday, August *, *, *:* PM > Subject: FMLA > Hi ****ohn, > I would advise that you use the FMLA that you have available to care for your current medical needs. I can let Dan know that you'll be leaving starting today, and we'll code the time off as FMLA. > Please keep me posted on how things are going: *-*-*. > Thanks, > Stephanie **Email Example *: My Appreciation of Stephanie's Support** I responded shortly after, expressing my gratitude for her assistance during a challenging time. > From: ****ohn Young > Sent: Monday, August *, *, *:* PM > Subject: Re: FMLA > Hi Stephanie, > I'm following through with getting the help I need. Wanted to touch base with you and give you my working number: *-*-*. > THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR HELP! > ****ohn Stephanie's proactive and compassionate approach allowed me to take the time needed to focus on my health and ultimately return to work in a better state. This example highlights Garmin's ability to support employees effectively when HR representatives engage with empathy and professionalism. #### Negative HR Experience in March *– ****anuary * In stark contrast, my interactions with Garmin's HR and Time Away From Work (TAFW) in * and * were marked by resistance, lack of transparency, and dismissiveness. My initial experience with requesting accommodations was rejected on October *, * during a write-up for NCNS and violating Garmin's attendance policy. This write-up was later removed and recognized under my FMLA protections. When I requested flexibility in reporting episodic absences related to my disabilities—such as using scheduled text communication during incapacitating episodes—both Melinda and Andy dismissed these suggestions outright. This rigid approach hindered my ability to manage my health effectively while fulfilling my job responsibilities. After initially stating my absences were FMLA related, Melinda said "oh no this is something different." Andy Veenstra was witness to this. This inconsistency in treatment underscores Garmin's failure to uphold its obligations under the ADA and FMLA, despite the creation of a specialized Time Away From Work (TAFW) department. For example, Lindsey O'Brien, the HR representative handling my requests, approved my ADA accommodations but failed to clarify how these adjustments would impact my attendance record from December *, * till ****anuary *, * and moving forward. The establishment of the TAFW department should have led to more specialized and efficient handling of leave requests. However, instead of improving processes for employees, it seemed to do the opposite. They were only attached to my * FMLA. #### Impact of TAFW Department The establishment of the Time Away From Work (TAFW) department was intended to lead to more specialized and efficient handling of leave requests, particularly for employees requiring ADA accommodations and FMLA leave. However, instead of improving processes, it resulted in a more bureaucratic system that lacked empathy and flexibility. This stark contrast with the supportive experience I received in * demonstrates a systemic failure in Garmin's management of ADA and FMLA obligations despite having a dedicated department designed for this purpose. ### Section *: Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations - **Adverse Action #*: Denial of Flexible Scheduling** - Date: November *, * - Description: My request for a flexible work schedule to accommodate medical appointments was denied without valid justification. - Impact: Hindered my ability to manage my health conditions effectively. - **Adverse Action #*: Imposition of Unnecessary Documentation** - Date: December *, * - Description: HR required excessive documentation for ADA accommodations, creating unnecessary obstacles and delays. - Impact: Added stress and delayed the implementation of necessary accommodations. - **Adverse Action #*: Failure to Remove Attendance Points** - Date: ****anuary *, * - Description: Despite approval of my ADA accommodations, attendance points accrued prior were not removed, despite repeated requests. - Impact: Negatively affected my employment record and increased job insecurity. ### Section *: Retaliation for Protected Activities - **Adverse Action #*: Removal of Raise** - Date: February *, * - Description: Following my accommodation requests, a scheduled raise was revoked without explanation. - Impact: Resulted in financial loss and appeared to be retaliatory. - **Adverse Action #*: Assignment to Anxiety-Inducing Work Areas** - Date: March *, * - Description: I was assigned to work areas that exacerbated my anxiety, despite prior accommodations. - Impact: Compromised my mental health and ability to perform effectively. - **Adverse Action #*: Termination of Employment** - Date: March *, * - Description: I was wrongfully dismissed from my position without adequate explanation or justification. - Impact: Led to significant financial instability and emotional distress. ### Section *: Impact on Personal and Professional Life The cumulative effect of these adverse actions severely impacted my mental and physical health, strained family relationships, and caused significant financial instability. The hostile work environment and lack of accommodations hindered my professional growth and well-being. - Mental and Physical Health: Increased anxiety and depression symptoms required additional medical treatment. - Family Relationships: Stress from work negatively affected my interactions with family members. - Financial Stability: Loss of income and revoked raises resulted in financial hardship. ### Section *: Legal Violations **Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)** - Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations: Garmin did not make necessary adjustments to my work environment or schedule. - Hostile Work Environment: Persistent harassment and discriminatory remarks created an untenable workplace. - Retaliation: Adverse actions were taken following my requests for accommodations and reporting of harassment. **Violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)** - Interference with FMLA Rights: Resistance and obstacles were placed when I attempted to use FMLA leave. - Retaliation for Exercising FMLA Rights: Negative actions followed my legitimate use of medical leave. ### Section *: Requested Remedies I respectfully request the following remedies to address the violations and their impact: *. Reinstatement of Position: Return to my previous role with appropriate accommodations in place. *. Compensation for Lost Wages and Benefits: Including back pay, front pay, and reinstatement of revoked raises. *. Damages for Emotional Distress: Compensation for the significant emotional and psychological harm suffered. *. Punitive Damages: To deter Garmin from engaging in similar conduct in the future. *. Policy Reforms at Garmin: Implementation of training programs and policy changes to prevent future discrimination and harassment. *. Attorney's Fees and Legal Costs: Reimbursement for all expenses incurred in pursuing this claim. ### Section *: Conclusion Garmin's discriminatory actions and their failure to provide reasonable accommodations have had a devastating impact on my life. Their rigid policies and the hostile work environment created by my supervisor caused significant damage to my mental and physical health, family relationships, and financial stability. The adverse actions I faced demonstrate a clear pattern of discrimination and retaliation, violating my rights under the ADA and FMLA. I urge the EEOC to thoroughly investigate these violations and take decisive action to hold Garmin accountable for their discriminatory practices. This case represents a critical opportunity to ensure that Garmin implements meaningful policy changes to prevent future discrimination and protect the rights of employees with disabilities. By holding Garmin accountable, the EEOC can help ensure a fair and inclusive workplace for all employees and deter other employers from engaging in similar discriminatory conduct. I implore the Commission to provide the remedies I have requested and to send a clear message that such discriminatory practices will not be tolerated. ******ohn Young - December *, *** ### Rebuttal of Garmin's Assertions **Attendance Issues** Garmin's assertion that my "tenure was marked by frequent absences" is misleading and selectively presented. While I experienced attendance challenges in *-*, these difficulties were directly related to the following: - Exacerbation of Disabilities: The hostile work environment created by my supervisor significantly worsened my pre-existing anxiety disorders, making it difficult to maintain a consistent work schedule at times. This is supported by medical documentation [if available, reference specific documents]. - Lack of Reasonable Accommodation: Garmin failed to provide reasonable accommodations for my disabilities in a timely and effective manner, further hindering my ability to manage my attendance. Despite these obstacles, I consistently demonstrated a strong work ethic, often working beyond the standard full-time schedule when my health permitted. My ability to maintain other employment during this period further underscores my capacity for full-time work in a supportive environment. **Inconsistent Application of Attendance Policy** Garmin's application of their attendance policy was inconsistent and discriminatory, clearly aimed at justifying my termination. I was not penalized with the expected "no call, no show" points for several instances of late arrivals due to my medical condition, even though these notifications fell outside the allowed timeframe. This leniency contradicts Garmin's claims that I was abusing FMLA and demonstrates a selective application of their attendance policy. It suggests that attendance points were used punitively and only enforced when it served their goal of terminating my employment. This is evidenced by the following: - Inconsistent Grace Period Application: On October *, *, I notified Mr. Veenstra at *:* AM about my late arrival for a *:* AM shift. Despite this being outside the one-hour grace period, I was not penalized. However, on other occasions, I was unfairly penalized even when notifying within the grace period. - **Unjustified NCNS Write-ups**: I was written up for two No Call, No Show (NCNS) incidents on September *, * (* points), and September *, * (* points), which caused me to hit the threshold for disciplinary action. However, I had notified my supervisor about these absences, and after challenging the write-ups and providing a doctor's note, these points were later removed. This highlights the arbitrary and punitive nature of Garmin's attendance enforcement. - **Schedule Manipulation and Point Accumulation**: My schedule was frequently changed without my knowledge or consent during this period, which led to unfair tardiness penalties. For instance: - On ****uly *, *, my schedule was altered without notification, resulting in a tardiness penalty that was later removed after I raised the issue. - Mr. Veenstra suggested changing my start time to address my tardiness; however, this adjustment did not prevent further points from being accrued due to inconsistent enforcement of attendance policies. These inconsistencies demonstrate that Garmin selectively applied their attendance policy to build a case for my termination, rather than addressing the root causes of my attendance issues—namely, the lack of reasonable accommodations and a hostile work environment. ### **FMLA and ADA Leave** Garmin's emphasis on the amount of FMLA and ADA leave I utilized is misleading and an attempt to shift blame for their failure to provide a safe and accommodating work environment. My need for protected leave was directly related to Garmin's inaction in addressing the hostile work environment and their failure to provide reasonable accommodations. Furthermore, Garmin misrepresents my communication regarding FMLA leave. I consistently and promptly notified my supervisor about my need for FMLA leave due to medical conditions. These communications were professional and provided adequate notice, refuting any claim directly or indirectly, that I abused or misused FMLA. Garmin also acknowledged receiving and approving my FMLA requests, which contradicts their assertion that I misused or abused this protected leave. ### **Supervisor's Conduct** Garmin's attempt to downplay my supervisor's inappropriate behavior is unacceptable. While they acknowledge a meeting to address my concerns about Andy Veenstra’s conduct, they failed to take meaningful corrective action or hold him accountable for his actions. Mr. Veenstra’s persistent harassment created a hostile work environment that caused significant emotional distress. This distress, compounded by Garmin’s failure to provide appropriate accommodations, directly impacted my ability to maintain consistent attendance. Garmin’s inaction constitutes a violation of my rights under the ADA and FMLA ### **Termination** Garmin’s claim that my termination was solely due to attendance issues is pretextual. The timing of my termination—one day after submitting updated FMLA paperwork and ADA accommodation requests—strongly suggests retaliation rather than legitimate disciplinary action. This pattern of behavior aligns with Garmin’s broader failure to uphold its obligations under the ADA and FMLA. --- ### Final Remarks Garmin's actions demonstrate a clear pattern of discrimination, retaliation, and failure to fulfill their legal obligations under the ADA and FMLA. Their inconsistent enforcement of attendance policies, refusal to provide reasonable accommodations, tolerance of a hostile work environment, and retaliatory termination have caused significant harm to me both personally and professionally. I respectfully ask the EEOC to investigate these violations thoroughly and take decisive action to hold Garmin accountable. By doing so, we can ensure that no other employees face similar discriminatory treatment in the future.
Section *: Legal Citations and Analysis
To support the claims made in this statement, the following legal citations are provided:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
- **Reasonable Accommodations**: * U.S.C. § *(b)(*)(A)
- Employers must make reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities unless it causes undue hardship.
- **Interactive Process**: * C.F.R. § *.*(o)(*)
- Details the need for an interactive process to determine appropriate accommodations.
- **Disparate Impact**: * U.S.C. § *(b)(*) and (b)(*)
- Prohibits practices that have a discriminatory effect on employees with disabilities.
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- **Interference with FMLA Rights**: * U.S.C. § *
- Prohibits employers from interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of FMLA rights.
- **Employer Notice Obligations**: * C.F.R. §§ *.*–*.*
- Outlines the requirements for employer notices under the FMLA, ensuring employees receive timely

Related Chats

Tax Implications For Pc Hiring An Employee Or Partnering With A Dba

Recording Conversations Without Consent

Sexual Harassment Legal Assistance

Workplace Covid 19 Penalties

Stopping Unemployment Benefits

< < Go Back
Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use