Workplace Policy Dispute Resolution

Kansas

Below is a comprehensive statement that merges (*) the updated version of your “Failure to Inform About the Nature of the Meeting” and “Analysis of Garmin’s Depiction of the Meeting” sections and (*) the new email excerpts you provided, ensuring that no details are omitted. Please note that this document is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. I. Failure to Inform About the Nature of the Meeting Meeting Transparency and Formality On January *, *, Human Resources hosted a meeting involving me (John Young) and my supervisor, Mr. Andy Veenstra, ostensibly to address ongoing concerns about harassment and a hostile work environment. However, I was neither informed of the meeting’s formality nor its potential impact on my complaints. This lack of transparency directly contradicts Garmin’s publicly stated value of open communication. Rather than fostering an atmosphere of trust and collaboration, the vague purpose and consequences of this meeting left me feeling uncertain, vulnerable, and ultimately uninformed about my rights and the process ahead. • No Clarification on Formal vs. Informal Nature • Your Perspective: HR did not ask whether I wanted my concerns addressed formally or informally, leaving me unaware that, by default, my serious allegations might be handled as an “informal” discussion. Had I been fully informed of the options, I would have requested a formal complaint process from the outset. • Garmin’s Portrayal: The company depicts this meeting as a professional, collaborative conversation aimed at diffusing workplace tensions. However, Garmin omits any mention of whether I was offered the choice or opportunity for formal escalation. • Legal Implications: Federal law (e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) and Kansas state law (e.g., the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, K.S.A. *-* et seq.) require employers to investigate allegations of harassment and retaliation—even absent a formal request—once they become aware of potentially unlawful behavior. By failing to clarify the nature of the meeting and denying me the procedural safeguards of a formal complaint, HR jeopardized my ability to secure a complete and impartial investigation of my claims. • HR’s Responsibility to Determine Severity • Your Argument: As the HR representative, Ms. Melinda Horn held the authority and responsibility to assess the seriousness of my complaints, which included allegations of harassment, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. These claims—if substantiated—could trigger liability under the FMLA, Title VII, and other statutes. • Negligence in HR’s Duty: By declining to classify my complaints formally, HR neglected its duty to act as a neutral arbiter and protect employees from unlawful behavior. This failure contradicts Garmin’s stated corporate value of accountability and transparency, effectively insulating the alleged misconduct from the level of scrutiny such allegations warrant. • Federal Mandates: Federal and state regulations impose an affirmative duty on employers to promptly investigate complaints of workplace misconduct. HR’s inaction, in this instance, suggests a disregard for these obligations, undermining the integrity of Garmin’s internal processes. II. Analysis of Garmin’s Depiction of the Meeting Garmin’s official response portrays the January *, * meeting as a calm, cooperative gathering intended to improve communication between me and Mr. Veenstra. 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.” • Failure to Accurately Represent the Meeting’s Tone and Purpose • Your Recollection: The meeting was neither calm nor collaborative from my perspective; it did not resolve my substantive complaints of harassment and retaliation. Indeed, I do not recall receiving an apology or acknowledging it, as Garmin claims. • Garmin’s Claim vs. Your Account: Whereas Garmin’s narrative suggests a constructive discussion between equals, the reality is that my allegations of a hostile work environment remained unaddressed, and Mr. Veenstra’s assertions about my alleged misconduct overshadowed my legitimate grievances. • Legal Context: Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the FMLA, employers must address retaliation and discrimination claims in good faith. Minimizing or distorting the nature of an employee’s complaints in documentation or statements can be viewed as further evidence of a hostile or retaliatory environment. • Role of Retaliation in the Meeting • Your Position: The January * meeting became a vehicle for further intimidation rather than an avenue to resolve my concerns. By shifting blame onto me—accusing me of workplace misconduct—Mr. Veenstra engaged in retaliatory behavior under the law. • Protected Activity: Complaining about harassment or invoking rights under the FMLA are protected activities. Retaliation can manifest as negative employment actions, blame-shifting, or unwarranted discipline shortly after an employee engages in such protected conduct. • Garmin’s Stated Policy: The company’s code purports to prohibit retaliation against employees who raise good-faith concerns. However, allowing unsupported or unverified accusations during a meeting scheduled to address harassment undercuts Garmin’s policy and perpetuates the very hostility the policy purports to forbid. • Baseless Accusations of Absenteeism • Your Evidence: • ADP Paystubs: Demonstrate consistent full-time work, at times exceeding standard hours. • Badge Swipe Data: Would confirm my location during work hours, rebutting claims that I was chronically absent. • Your Explanation: Any temporary fluctuation in attendance stemmed from my documented disabilities and the hostile environment fostered by my supervisor’s conduct. • Garmin’s Assertion: By branding my tenure as “marked by frequent absences,” Garmin misrepresents my work record to devalue my complaints and portray me as an unreliable employee. • Garmin’s Broader Narrative and Legal Deficiencies • Downplaying Complaints: Garmin’s reference to the meeting as “calm and professional” disregards the hostile and accusatory nature of Mr. Veenstra’s statements. • Failure to Investigate: Despite being put on notice of serious allegations, Garmin apparently never launched a formal investigation. Employers have an affirmative duty to address and remediate workplace misconduct. • Impact on the Workplace: By allowing unchecked retaliation and dismissing legitimate concerns, Garmin effectively perpetuated a toxic atmosphere, culminating in my wrongful termination on March *, *. Additional Points of Clarification • Meeting Transparency and Formality: • Your Perspective: You expected a thorough discussion or a formal complaint process, yet Garmin presented the meeting as a simple conversation, failing to inform you of the possible outcomes or your procedural options. • Garmin’s Portrayal: The company continues to frame the meeting as friendly and solution-oriented, downplaying your accusations of harassment and retaliation. • HR’s Responsibility and Complaint Handling: • Your Argument: Ms. Horn did not adequately escalate or document your complaints. • Legal Implications: Federal and state laws require prompt and impartial investigations into harassment and retaliation allegations, whether or not the employee requests “formal” action. • Meeting Content and Tone: • Your Recollection: No apology was made, and the discussion devolved into Mr. Veenstra’s unsubstantiated accusations. • Garmin’s Claim: Mr. Veenstra apologized; you allegedly thanked him, and the meeting was calm. • Attendance and Performance: • Your Evidence: Consistent ADP records and potential badge-swipe data confirm regular attendance. • Garmin’s Assertion: Seeks to characterize you as frequently absent to weaken your credibility and overshadow your harassment claims. Conclusion Far from a “calm and professional” resolution, the January *, * meeting was a missed opportunity to address and remediate serious allegations of harassment, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Garmin’s failure to: • Clarify the Nature of the Meeting • Investigate Potentially Unlawful Behavior • Protect Me From Retaliation • Accurately Represent My Work Performance …all contributed to a workplace culture where my valid complaints were minimized and ultimately punished. This pattern of handling or mischaracterizing employee complaints contravenes both Garmin’s stated corporate values and the requirements of federal and Kansas employment law. Ultimately, the toxic environment persisted and led to my wrongful termination on March *, *. I respectfully submit these details as evidence of Garmin’s mishandling of my harassment complaints and retaliatory conduct, and I look forward to pursuing a resolution that addresses these grievances. Respectfully submitted, John Young Dated: ____________ Relevant Email Correspondence with HR and Supervisor To further illustrate how Garmin mishandled my complaints and failed to provide clear information about the January *, * meeting, I have included excerpts from emails between myself, Mr. Andy Veenstra (my supervisor), and Ms. Melinda Horn (HR). 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 (January *, *) From: John Y To: Horn, Melinda Date: Wednesday, January *, *:* 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: By receiving these details directly from me, Ms. Horn was explicitly put on notice about my concerns prior to the meeting. *. HR’s Response Confirming Disappointment in Supervisor’s Remarks From: Horn, Melinda To: John Y Date: Wednesday, January *, *:* PM “Thanks for letting me know John. 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: John 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). *. Your Follow-Up (March *, *) From: John 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: John Y To: Horn, Melinda Date: Wednesday, January * (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 January * 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 acknowledgement that it was “unfortunate” does not appear to have led to any meaningful remedial action, furthering the climate of harassment. • 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 “information dumping” I felt compelled to do because of ongoing workplace stress. This can be relevant to damages for emotional distress or other relief in a wrongful termination or retaliation claim. Additional 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 January *, * 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 key evidentiary pieces demonstrating how a pattern of ambiguity, inconsistency, and improper handling of complaints created a hostile work environment—culminating in my wrongful termination on March *, *. Note: To bolster your position, ensure you maintain thorough documentation (emails, medical records, FMLA certifications, timecards, notes from meetings, etc.) and consult with an attorney experienced in employment law for tailored legal advice on potential claims under federal and state statutes.

No. Grade my statement

Am i allowed to asked ex co workers about them witnessing his harassment

Yes

I upload garmin response to my demand letter. What other points should i address

This follows our call with your office on Monday, July *. We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated July *, *, concerning John 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 June * 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 January *, *, 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 */*/* John: accrued * attendance points. had *.* hours of unpaid time off and *.* hours of unscheduled PTO. was tardy * times. worked *.* hours of OT. John 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 January *, *, Mr. Young requested additional protected leave under the ADA. His request was approved on January *, * 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 January *, * 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 January *, *, Mr. Young requested a meeting with HR’s Mindy Horn and Mr. Veenstra to discuss their working relationship. On January *, *, 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

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. These are the only paystubs I could access, but I have contacted ADP about retrieving the rest. 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. Given this record, I firmly believe Garmin’s decision to terminate my employment was both unjust and misaligned with my dedication and contributions to the organization. Compiled Hours Record * Pay Periods (Chronological Order): December *, *: *.* hours December *, *: *.* hours December *, *: *.* hours (adjustment) December *, *: *.* hours Total Hours (*): *.* hours  * Pay Periods (Chronological Order): January - March: January *, *: *.* hours January *, *: *.* hours February *, *: *.* hours February *, *: *.* hours March *, *: *.* hours March *, *: *.* hours April *, *: *.* hours April - June: April *, *: *.* hours May *, *: *.* hours May *, *: *.* hours June *, *: *.* hours June *, *: *.* hours July - September: July *, *: *.* hours July *, *: *.* hours July *, *: *.* hours August *, *: *.* hours August *, *: *.* hours September *, *: *.* hours September *, *: *.* hours October - December: October *, *: *.* hours October *, *: *.* hours November *, *: *.* hours November *, *: *.* hours December *, *: *.* hours December *, *: *.* hours December *, *: *.* hours Total Hours (*): *,*.* hours * Pay Periods (Chronological Order): January - March: January *, *: *.* hours January *, *: *.* hours February *, *: *.* hours February *, *: *.* hours March *, *: *.* hours March *, *: *.* hours April *, *: *.* hours April - June: April *, *: *.* hours May *, *: *.* hours May *, *: *.* hours June *, *: *.* hours June *, *: *.* hours June *, *: *.* hours July - December (Updated): July *, *: *.* hours July *, *: *.* hours September *, *: *.* hours September *, *: *.* hours October *, *: *.* hours October *, *: *.* hours November *, *: *.* hours November *, *: *.* hours December *, *: *.* hours December *, *: *.* hours Total Hours (*): *,*.* hours  Overall Summary: * Total Hours: *.* hours * Total Hours: *,*.* hours * Total Hours: *,*.* hours Combined Total Hours (*-*): *,*.* hours

Outline of Potential Legal Arguments in the Matter of John Young v. Garmin International I. Introduction This document outlines potential legal arguments for the case of John Young v. Garmin International, focusing on alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and Kansas employment law. It analyzes Garmin's attendance policy, Mr. Young's testimony, and relevant case law to identify potential causes of action and supporting evidence. II. Potential ADA Violations A. Failure to Accommodate Garmin's attendance policy and treatment of Mr. Young suggest a failure to provide reasonable accommodations for his disabilities, as required by the ADA. [cite: *, *, *, *] The policy's inflexibility and lack of explicit accommodation language may have created barriers for Mr. Young in managing his medical needs. [cite: *, *, *, *, *, *, *, *, *, *] B. Discriminatory Termination Mr. Young's termination due to absences related to his disabilities could constitute discrimination under the ADA. [cite: *] His testimony indicates that Garmin prioritized adherence to the attendance policy over addressing his accommodation needs, potentially leading to discriminatory termination. [cite: *, *, *, *, *, *] C. Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process Garmin's actions suggest a failure to engage in a good-faith interactive process to determine reasonable accommodations for Mr. Young's disabilities. [cite: *, *, *, *, *, *] The lack of documented discussions and exploration of accommodation options indicates a potential violation of the ADA's interactive process requirement. III. Potential FMLA Violations A. Interference with FMLA Rights Garmin's actions, such as penalizing Mr. Young for FMLA-protected absences and the timing of his termination, suggest interference with his FMLA rights. [cite: *, *, *, *, *, *, *] The company's attendance policy and its application to Mr. Young raise concerns about whether Garmin adequately protected his FMLA rights. B. Retaliation for Exercising FMLA Rights Mr. Young's termination shortly after his FMLA approval and his account of escalating punitive measures suggest retaliation for using FMLA leave. [cite: *, *, *, *, *, *, *] This aligns with the pattern observed in Peterson v. Garmin, where the court found that Garmin retaliated against an employee for requesting accommodations or using FMLA leave. IV. Disparate Impact Argument Mr. Young may also have a viable disparate impact claim under the ADA. This claim focuses on the discriminatory effects of an employer's policies or practices, regardless of their intent. A. Inflexible Attendance Policy Garmin's rigid attendance policy, which does not explicitly allow for exceptions or modifications for employees with disabilities, could disproportionately impact such employees. [cite: *, *, *, *, *, *, *, *, *, *] The policy's lack of flexibility may create barriers for employees with unpredictable attendance needs or those requiring frequent medical appointments. B. Lack of Accommodation Language The absence of clear language on accommodations in the attendance policy may discourage employees with disabilities from seeking necessary flexibility, leading to them being penalized for absences related to their disabilities. [cite: *, *] C. Limited Supervisor Discretion Limited supervisor discretion can create barriers for employees with disabilities who require individualized accommodations beyond the narrow scope provided in the policy. [cite: *, *, *, *] D. Fear of Retaliation The emphasis on disciplinary action in the attendance policy can create a climate of fear for employees with disabilities, discouraging them from requesting accommodations or using FMLA leave for fear of retaliation. [cite: *, *, *, *, *, *] V. Conclusion Based on the analysis of Mr. Young's testimony, the evidence, and relevant legal standards, there appear to be substantial grounds for alleging violations of both the ADA and FMLA by Garmin. Mr. Young may have viable claims for failure to accommodate, discriminatory termination, interference with FMLA rights, and retaliation. The disparate impact argument further strengthens his case by highlighting the potentially discriminatory effects of Garmin's attendance policy on employees with disabilities.

Okay, here is the revised EEOC Mediation Statement incorporating the suggested changes, including a summarized table of timecard edits, a stronger explanation of the timecard notification violation, quantified damages, and other refinements: EEOC Mediation Statement and Comprehensive Claim Documentation: Statement of John Young Regarding Discrimination and Retaliation at Garmin Executive Summary This statement details the discrimination and retaliation I, John Young, experienced during my employment at Garmin from June * to March *, *. Garmin's actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of *, stemming from my requests for reasonable accommodations and their failure to address a hostile work environment. This ultimately led to my wrongful termination in retaliation for exercising my legally protected rights. I seek reinstatement, back pay, compensation for damages, and policy changes to prevent future discrimination at Garmin. I. Introduction This statement outlines the discriminatory and retaliatory actions I faced while employed at Garmin. These actions stemmed from my requests for reasonable accommodations under the ADA and FMLA, and Garmin's failure to address a hostile work environment. This ultimately culminated in my wrongful termination for exercising my legally protected rights. II. Garmin’s Discriminatory and Rigid Policy Enforcement Garmin employed a rigid, overly literal interpretation of its policies, especially concerning attendance and harassment reporting. Rather than adapting to my disability-related needs and addressing harassment complaints, Garmin prioritized strict compliance with attendance metrics and formal complaint channels over meaningful engagement and accommodation. This environment was inherently discriminatory and placed me at a disadvantage due to my medical conditions. III. Hostile Work Environment and Harassment * Persistent whistling and mocking by my supervisor, Mr. Andrew “Andy” Veenstra, despite knowing it triggered severe anxiety. * Public reprimands for standard practices (e.g., batch scanning), singling me out before peers. * Sarcastic comments, such as implying I was “not articulate enough,” undermining my professional standing. * Physical assault by a coworker, Justin, witnessed but not addressed by my supervisor, Dan Lukowski. This incident not only created a hostile work environment but also fostered a sense of fear and anxiety, as it demonstrated that physical violence was tolerated and that reporting it could be futile or even result in retaliation. IV. ADA Violations: Failure to Accommodate * Denial of reasonable accommodations: Garmin repeatedly denied my requests for accommodations that would have mitigated anxiety triggers, such as reassignment from stressful work areas. * Lack of good-faith interactive process: Garmin failed to engage in a meaningful interactive process to identify and implement reasonable accommodations. They did not initiate discussions, explore alternative solutions, or collaborate with me and my healthcare provider to find effective accommodations. This failure is a direct violation of the ADA, as established in EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., LP, * F.3d * (5th Cir. *), which emphasizes the employer's duty to engage in a "meaningful dialogue" with employees seeking accommodations. * Superficial approval of ADA requests: While Garmin eventually approved my ADA request, they did so without any meaningful discussion or consideration of alternatives, which does not fulfill their obligation under the interactive process. V. FMLA Interference and Retaliation * Punitive attendance points: Garmin applied punitive attendance points even during FMLA-approved absences, demonstrating a disregard for my rights under the FMLA. * Inaccurate tracking of FMLA hours: Garmin failed to track my FMLA hours accurately, which led to excessive point accumulation and ultimately contributed to my termination. * Removal of pay raises: Garmin removed my pay raises following attendance points accrued for medically necessary absences, further demonstrating their disregard for my FMLA rights. * Retaliatory termination: My termination occurred one day after submitting updated FMLA paperwork and ADA requests, and on the same day as requesting a shift change to accommodate my disability needs, strongly suggesting a retaliatory motive. The case of Peterson v. Garmin AT, Inc. provides a relevant precedent, highlighting Garmin's prior awareness of their legal obligations regarding FMLA and their failure to adhere to them. VI. Failure to Address Harassment Garmin's narrow focus on formal complaint channels ignores its broader responsibility to investigate and address harassment. My direct confrontation with my supervisor, Andy Veenstra, on February *, *, regarding his inappropriate comment about my children, and my follow-up email to HR on March *, * (Exhibit A), demonstrate my efforts to resolve the situation. Garmin's failure to act because I didn't follow their formal procedure contradicts their legal duty to provide a harassment-free workplace, as established in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton. This case established that employers are responsible for preventing and addressing harassment, regardless of whether it is reported through formal channels. VII. Inflexible Attendance Policies Garmin’s attendance policies were applied inconsistently and punitively, penalizing me for attempting to work while managing a disability. In some instances, not reporting to work at all would have resulted in fewer points than arriving late due to disability-related reasons. This inflexibility disregarded the unpredictability of my condition and contributed to excessive point accumulation and termination. VIII. Evidentiary Issues HR's handling of my complaints and the January *, * meeting raise serious evidentiary concerns. By conducting the meeting informally without my knowledge or consent, and by failing to document my complaints properly, Garmin appears to have deliberately tried to minimize the significance of my allegations and shield themselves from liability. This raises questions about their commitment to transparency and fairness in handling employee complaints. IX. The Devastating Consequences of Discrimination and Retaliation Personal Impact: * Worsening mental health: Chronic anxiety, panic attacks, and debilitating headaches, exacerbated by the fear of further retaliation and the stress of a hostile work environment. * Strained family relationships: Missed important events with my children and reduced participation in their daily lives due to the stress and anxiety caused by Garmin's actions. * Financial hardship: Lost raises totaling approximately $*,*, inability to work supplemental jobs due to declining health, and increased medical expenses of approximately $*,*. Professional Impact: * Wrongful termination, stalling career progression and causing reputational harm. * Persistent fear of reprisal undermined performance and job satisfaction, creating a constant state of anxiety and apprehension. * Economic Harm: Lost wages due to termination estimated at $*,* to date. Total Quantified Damages: Approximately $*,* (Lost wages, lost raises, and medical expenses). This figure does not include potential future lost wages or compensation for emotional distress, which will be further detailed in the mediation process. X. Differential Treatment and Inconsistent Enforcement My colleagues who utilized FMLA for non-medical reasons, including extended international travel, faced no adverse consequences. In contrast, my legitimate use of intermittent FMLA for a documented medical condition triggered scrutiny, lost wages, and termination. Attendance policies were inconsistently enforced, with other employees receiving fewer points for similar infractions. This selective enforcement suggests discriminatory intent and retaliation. XI. Evidence of Proper vs. Improper FMLA Handling * Experience: HR representative Stephanie Prell handled my * FMLA request professionally, offering guidance, coding absences correctly, and ensuring my needs were met. This proper handling evidences Garmin’s knowledge of lawful procedures. *–* Experience: By contrast, Garmin’s handling of my more recent requests lacked engagement, accommodation, or sincerity. Points were assigned during FMLA-protected absences, and HR provided no meaningful support. This stark difference between past compliance and current noncompliance suggests a deliberate departure from lawful standards, rather than ignorance. XII. Legal Arguments ADA Violations: Garmin failed to provide reasonable accommodations and did not engage in an interactive process, violating ADA requirements. Retaliation for requesting these accommodations further breaches the ADA. FMLA Interference and Retaliation: Garmin interfered with my exercise of FMLA rights by misapplying attendance points and retaliated by removing raises and terminating me shortly after renewed leave requests. Specific FMLA Notice Violation: On December *, *, I received notification that my FMLA hours were exhausted, effective that same day. This notification was provided to me with only *.* hours remaining, leaving me virtually no time to adjust my leave usage or make alternative arrangements. This constitutes a violation of the FMLA's timely notice requirement under * C.F.R. § *.*(c)(*). Notifying me after the fact clearly fails to meet this requirement and prevented me from making an informed decision about my leave usage. This late notification directly contributed to the accrual of attendance points used to justify my termination. Garmin's failure in this regard is further evidence of their interference with my FMLA rights. Title VII Hostile Work Environment: Garmin tolerated and, by inaction, effectively endorsed a hostile environment—public ridicule, mocking behavior, and ignoring my reports of harassment—all of which constitute a hostile work environment claim. XIII. Garmin’s Changes to Attendance Policy (July *) After I engaged in protected activity, Garmin modified its attendance policies to become more restrictive and discretionary. These policy changes appear designed to penalize employees requiring flexible schedules, including those with ADA or FMLA needs. Such targeted policy shifts are consistent with retaliatory intent and selective enforcement. XIV. Performance and Business Justifications Garmin’s claims that performance or attendance issues justified my termination are pretextual. My historical work record, achievements, and performance evaluations (Exhibit H) show that I consistently met expectations. Any attendance challenges were tied to medically documented conditions and should have been protected under the ADA and FMLA. XV. Summary of Timecard Edits ¿¿ The following table summarizes the frequent and often irregular edits made to my timecards, particularly by my supervisor, Andy Veenstra. This pattern suggests a deliberate attempt to manipulate my attendance records, contributing to the justification for my termination. | Date Range of Timecard | Date of Approval/Edit | Who Made the Edit | Brief Description of Edit (if notable) | Any Irregularit **Analysis of Timecard Edits:** The table reveals a pattern of frequent edits and approvals made to my timecards, predominantly by my supervisor, Andy Veenstra. Notably, there are instances where timecards were approved, then subsequently edited and re-approved, raising concerns about the accuracy and integrity of the attendance tracking process. These irregularities, coupled with the broader pattern of discriminatory behavior, suggest a deliberate effort to manipulate my attendance records to support disciplinary actions, ultimately leading to my wrongful termination. The high frequency of edits, particularly after my initial timecard submissions and approvals, supports the claim that these actions were part of a retaliatory strategy following my requests for accommodations and use of FMLA leave. **XVI. Requested Remedies** * **Reinstatement:** Return to my previous or a comparable position with proper accommodations. * **Back Pay and Front Pay:** Compensation for lost wages (estimated at $*,* to date), benefits, and earning capacity, including the $*,* in lost raises. * **Compensatory and Punitive Damages:** Recognition of emotional distress, economic losses (including approximately $*,* in increased medical expenses), and deterrence of future misconduct. * **Policy Reforms and Training:** Implementation of mandatory training on ADA and FMLA compliance, harassment prevention, and the interactive process, as well as revisions to attendance policies ensuring fairness and consistency. * **Attorneys’ Fees and Costs:** Coverage of all legal expenses incurred in pursuing these claims. **XVII. Conclusion** The evidence presented in this statement paints a stark and undeniable picture of a company culture at Garmin where discrimination, harassment, and retaliation were allowed to fester and flourish, culminating in my wrongful termination. Garmin's actions were not merely missteps or misunderstandings; they were deliberate and calculated violations of my rights under the ADA, FMLA, and Title VII. The blatant disregard for my disability, the relentless harassment I endured, and the company's refusal to engage in a good-faith interactive process demonstrate a profound lack of respect for both the law and basic human decency. Garmin's actions have not only cost me my job and financial stability, but they have also inflicted deep emotional wounds and irreparably damaged my relationship with my children. The contrast between Garmin's supportive handling of my FMLA request in * and the hostile and dismissive treatment I received in subsequent years exposes a disturbing pattern of discrimination and a callous indifference to the well-being of its employees. This pattern is further underscored by the inconsistent application of attendance policies, the denial of reasonable accommodations, and the retaliatory actions taken against me for daring to assert my legal rights. Garmin's attempts to justify my termination with flimsy excuses about performance and attendance are nothing more than a smokescreen to conceal their discriminatory motives. The evidence clearly shows that my termination was a direct result of my disability and my efforts to seek accommodations, a blatant act of retaliation that cannot be tolerated. I urge the EEOC to recognize the gravity of these violations and to take decisive action to hold Garmin accountable for its unlawful conduct. I am not merely seeking financial compensation for the harm I have suffered; I am demanding justice. I am demanding that Garmin be held responsible for fostering a toxic work environment where discrimination and retaliation are allowed to thrive. I am committed to pursuing this matter through all available legal channels until justice is served. I will not rest until Garmin is held accountable for its actions and systemic changes are implemented to ensure that no other employee suffers the same fate. This is not just about me; it's about protecting the rights of all employees and creating a workplace where everyone is treated with dignity and respect. **Appendix and Exhibits**