EVANS v. BOMBARDIER, INC. Et Al Complaint

Case 2:10-cv-00751-AJS Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 19
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM S. EVANS, an ) NO.

individual, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
BOMBARDIER, INC., a corporation, and )
BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
(HOLDINGS) USA INC., a corporation, )
) Electronically Filed
Defendants. )
)
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, William S. Evans, though undersigned counsel, and
files this Complaint for damages and other relief because of violations of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29
U.S.C. § 621 et seq., the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.,
and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951 et seq.
I. JURISDICTION
1. Jurisdiction of this Court over the matters in this Complaint is founded upon 28
U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(j)(3).
II. VENUE
2. The events related in this Complaint occurred in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,
in the Western District of Pennsylvania; therefore, venue is proper in this Court.
III. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff William S. Evans (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Mr. Evans”) is an adult

male, over forty (40) years of age, residing at 2429 Maryland Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15241.
4. Defendant Bombardier, Inc. (hereinafter “the Parent Corporation”) is a foreign
corporation with its principal place of business at 800 René-Léveseque Boulevard, West,
Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3B 178.
5. Defendant Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) USA Inc. (hereinafter
“Bombardier Transportation”) is a subsidiary corporation of the Parent Corporation and has its
principal place of business at 1501 Lebanon Church Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236-1491.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION
6. Plaintiff filed administrative complaints with both the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (hereinafter “EEOC”), reference number 533-2009-61311, and with the
Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (hereinafter “PHRC”), and received a “right to sue
letter” from the EEOC on or about March 15, 2010.
V. FACTS
7. Plaintiff is a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and was
previously employed by Defendant as a Legal Counsel.
8. Plaintiff is a male who was forty-eight (48) years old at the time of his discharge
and hence is a member of the classes protected by both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
9. Plaintiff avers that he was offered a position as Legal Counsel in the Contracts
Department of Bombardier Transportation (hereinafter “Contracts Department”) by means of an
offer letter dated May 2, 2005.
2
10. Plaintiff avers that he accepted the aforementioned offer on or about May 10,
2010.
11. Plaintiff avers that he initially reported for work on or about May 16, 2005.
12. Plaintiff’s initial supervisor was Katherine Kimball, Contracts Director
(hereinafter “Ms. Kimball”); however, he reported directly to David Allen (hereinafter “Mr.
Allen”), former Vice President of Contracts for Bombardier Transportation within a period of
ninety (90) days after he started to work for Bombardier Transportation.
13. Plaintiff’s terms of employment further included a guarantee of severance pay in
the event of his involuntary separation from Bombardier Transportation.
14. Any severance pay or pension payment is governed by a written severance pay and
furlough policy (hereinafter “severance policy” or “severance pay and furlough policy”), the
latest version of which is dated March 1, 2006.
15. Per the severance policy, an employee was to receive severance pay in the amount
of one week’s pay for each year of service with Bombardier Transportation, two weeks of benefit
for each five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) of annual earnings over fifty thousand dollars
($50,000.00), and one week’s pay for each full year of the employee’s age over age forty (40).
16. Plaintiff avers that he is entitled to any and all severance pay due per the
severance policy.
17. Per the severance policy, Plaintiff is entitled to forty two and five hundred ninety
two thousandths (42.592) weeks of severance pay and avers that he is entitled to this amount
based on the following calculations:
a. Plaintiff is entitled to four (4) weeks of severance pay based on four full
3
years of service;
b. Plaintiff is entitled to thirty and five hundred ninety two thousandths
(30.592) additional weeks of severance pay based on the fact that since he
is to receive two (2) weeks of severance pay for each five thousand dollars
($5,000.00) earned over fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), and that his
annual salary (which in total was one hundred twenty six thousand four
hundred eighty dollars ($126,480.00)) above fifty thousand dollars
($50,000.00) was seventy six thousand four hundred eighty dollars
($76,480.00), which is fifteen and two hundred ninety six thousandths
(15.296) times five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) of annual earnings over
fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) and that he is entitled to two (2) weeks
of weekly salary above for each five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) earned
annually above fifty thousand ($50,000.00);
c. Plaintiff is entitled to eight (8) additional weeks of severance pay based on
the fact that he was forty eight (48) years old at the time of his termination.
18. The cumulative amount of severance pay due and owing to Plaintiff is one
hundred three thousand three hundred ninety six and ninety five cents ($103,596.95), based on
the product of Plaintiff’s weekly salary, two thousand four hundred thirty two dollars and thirty
one cents ($2,432.31) multiplied by forty two and five hundred ninety two thousandths (42.592)
weeks.
19. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff’s annual salary was one hundred twenty
six thousand four hundred eighty dollars ($126,480.00).
4
20. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff’s weekly salary was two thousand four
hundred thirty two dollars and thirty one cents ($2,432.31).
21. Plaintiff was initially praised for his performance by his supervisors.
22. Prior to 2009, Plaintiff was given annual merit increases in pay as a result of his
performance.
23. In a letter dated March 16, 2007, Mr. Allen noted to Plaintiff that the Contracts
Department “would fall apart” without the input provided by Plaintiff.
24. Based upon knowledge and belief, Plaintiff was complemented on the quality of
his work by his colleagues at Bombardier Transportation.
25. On or about October 5, 2007, Plaintiff was promoted in rank with a corresponding
increase in salary.
26. Plaintiff was given a separate office as a result of his work on sensitive and
confidential legal matters.
27. Mr. Allen was later replaced as Vice President of Contracts for Bombardier
Transportation by Jill Hampton (hereinafter “Ms. Hampton”) as part of a corporate
reorganization of Bombardier Transportation undertaken in July of 2008.
28. After Ms. Hampton was promoted to Vice President of Contracts, Plaintiff again
reported to Ms. Kimball.
29. Within months after Ms. Hampton and Ms. Kimball took over control of the
Contracts Department, Plaintiff was put on a performance improvement plan (hereinafter “PIP”).
30. After Ms. Hampton and Ms. Kimball took over control of the Contracts
Department, Plaintiff was required to work alongside two substantially younger but less
5
experienced colleagues, Peter Vitelli (hereinafter “Mr. Vitelli”) and Stacie Beale (hereinafter
“Ms. Beale”).
31. On or about November 7, 2008, when she placed Plaintiff on the PIP, Ms.
Kimball claimed that Mr. Evans was “unduly aggressive” and was not a “team player.”
32. The goals of the PIP appeared to be arbitrary and a pretext for a pre-determined
decision to remove Plaintiff from his position as Legal Counsel.
33. Subsequent to being placed on the PIP, Plaintiff was contacted by means of email
by Ron Lawrence (hereinafter “Mr. Lawrence”) and was described as a “team player.”
34. Plaintiff had been complimented by employees of Defendant on the quality of his
work.
35. Plaintiff had previously been qualified for, and had received, incentive pay.
36. Ms. Kimball publically berated Plaintiff.
37. Ms. Kimball used an expletive when addressing Plaintiff after he “failed” to credit
a business outcome to her.
38. Plaintiff’s supervisors, including Ms. Hampton and Ms. Kimball, denied Plaintiff
the opportunity to engage in certain training programs that were required as part of the
performance management process/plan.
39. Pursuant to his responsibilities as a Legal Counsel, Plaintiff received and
reviewed estimates of legal costs submitted by outside counsel for anticipated legal services
rendered for Bombardier Transportation.
40. During 2009, Plaintiff received from the law firm of Jones Day (hereinafter
“outside counsel”) an estimate for future outside legal costs amounting to one million and eight
6
hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000.00).
41. In order to create an appearance that the legal costs were within budget and to
falsely underestimate the amount of Bombardier Transportation’s exposure, Plaintiff avers that
Ms. Hampton and Ms. Kimball falsely decreased the estimate from outside counsel by an amount
of one million dollars ($1,000.000.00), thus rendering the estimate as eight hundred thousand
dollars ($800,000.00).
42. After Plaintiff became aware of this intentionally false underestimate of the legal
costs that would be incurred by Bombardier Transportation due to the use of outside counsel,
Plaintiff complained about actions done by Ms. Hampton and Ms. Kimball pursuant to the
creation of this false underestimate to the management of both Bombardier Transportation and of
the Parent Corporation.
43. Bombardier Transportation has been viewed by employees as a “women’s club”
due to hiring preferences favoring women.
44. Eran Gartner (hereinafter “Mr. Gartner”), President of the Systems Division of
Bombardier Transportation, publically stated at a meeting in Washington, D.C., of Bombardier
Transportation’s employees that “women are smarter than men.”
45. David Penhorwood (hereinafter “Mr. Penhorwood”), a Vice President of the Rail
Control Solutions Division for Bombardier Transportation, confided with Plaintiff that
Bombardier Transportation treats female employees better than male employees, due in part to a
fact that there are more women in positions of power within Bombardier Transportation and that
Bombardier Transportation is overcompensating for past gender imbalances.
46. After returning from a business trip to China, Ms. Hampton brought back gifts for
7
all of the female employees in her department, but did not bring any gifts for any of the male
employees.
47. Ms. Kimball needlessly, publically, and aggressively berated Plaintiff after he
apparently failed to mention her name in connection with a business accomplishment.
48. Plaintiff was terminated from his position as Legal Counsel for Bombardier
Transportation on or about May 22, 2009.
49. Plaintiff had worked for Bombardier Transportation for a period of four (4) years.
50. Plaintiff had been promoted at least one (1) time during the time period in which
he worked at Bombardier Transportation.
51. Upon his termination from employment, Bombardier Transportation presented a
separation agreement to Plaintiff.
52. Pursuant to the Older Workers’ Benefit Protection Act (hereinafter “the
OWBPA”), Plaintiff was given a notice of his rights under the OWBPA.
53. Remarkably, the date of this aforementioned OWPBA notice was September 6,
2008, long before Plaintiff’s actual date of termination.
54. The date of the aforementioned OWPBA notice was shortly after the corporate
reorganization of Bombardier Transportation but prior to the date of the PIP.
55. The 2009 Performance Management Process objectives (hereinafter “PMP” or
“PMP objectives”) for Plaintiff were “saved” into the system on or about May 19, 2009, three
days before Plaintiff was terminated.
56. The aforementioned “PMP” is the annual review form which is used by
Bombardier Transportation to set employee objectives for the upcoming year, to identify a
8
personal development plan for an employee, to provide mid-year and year-end reviews of
employee performance, to identify leadership commitments, core values, and to provide an
employee with an overall performance rating.
57. The date of the aforementioned OWPBA notice suggests that the decision to
terminate Plaintiff was predetermined.
58. Plaintiff never consented to the aforementioned separation agreement.
59. Subsequent to his termination, Bombardier Transportation advertised for a
vacancy in Plaintiff’s position, seeking a replacement with only four (4) years of experience, far
fewer years of legal experience than is possessed by Plaintiff.
60. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the failure to award to him severance
pay after four years of dedicated service is unduly harsh, disingenuous, and discriminatory.
61. The aforementioned advertisement could appear to be targeted towards a
significantly younger individual.
62. Plaintiff avers that he did not receive any severance pay per Bombardier
Transportation’s severance policy.
VI. CLAIMS
COUNT I: TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
63. Paragraphs 1 through 62 are incorporated as if set forth at length herein.
64. Plaintiff is a male and, accordingly, is a member of a class protected by Title VII.
65. Plaintiff was qualified for the position of Legal Counsel for Bombardier
Transportation.
9
67. Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when he was terminated from his
position as Legal Counsel for Bombardier Transportation, and subsequently his severance was
denied.
68. Plaintiff’s termination was motivated by his gender.
69. Plaintiff avers that the non-discriminatory reasons given for his termination are
pretextual.
70. Plaintiff avers that the pre-dated notice of his rights under the OWPBA suggests
that the decision to terminate him from his employment was predetermined.
71. Bombardier Transportation and the Parent Corporation are unusual employers
who engage in gender-based discrimination against males and favoritism of females.
72. The sexist statement made by Mr. Gartner stating that “women are smarter than
men” displays an unfortunate anti-male animus among senior management of Bombardier
Transportation.
73. Based on knowledge and belief, at least one (1) less qualified employee within the
Contracts Department who was a female was not terminated by Bombardier Transportation.
74. By failing to terminate the female employee(s), Bombardier Transportation
discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of gender.
COUNT II: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
76. Plaintiff is a male and, accordingly, is a member of a class protected by Title VII.
10
Transportation.
position as Legal Counsel for Bombardier Transportation, and subsequently his severance pay
pursuant to the Bombardier Transportation severance pay and furlough policy was denied.
80. Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of his gender in
the form of hostile and sexist insults to men in general and Plaintiff in particular made by Ms.
Hampton, Ms. Kimball, Mr. Gartner, and other senior employees of Bombardier Transportation.
81. Plaintiff avers that women were not subjected to similar treatment.
82. Plaintiff avers that the hostile and sexist insults directed towards him were severe
and pervasive.
83. Plaintiff avers that the negative employment action he suffered, namely his
termination, was caused in part by the hostile work environment that he experienced while
working as Legal Counsel for Bombardier Transportation.
COUNT III: TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF ADEA

29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
85. Plaintiff is over forty (40) years old, and hence is a member of the class protected
by the ADEA.
11
Transportation.
position as Legal Counsel for Bombardier Transportation, and subsequently his severance was
denied.
89. Plaintiff’s termination was motivated by his age.
pretextual.
91. Plaintiff avers that the pre-dated notice of his rights under the OWPBA reflects
92. The OWPBA notice given to Plaintiff by Bombardier Transportation is inoperable
as a wavier of claims arising under the ADEA.
93. Based on knowledge and belief, at least one (1) less qualified employee(s) within
the Contracts Department who was significantly younger than Plaintiff was not terminated by
Bombardier Transportation.
94. By failing to terminate the significantly younger employee(s), Bombardier
Transportation discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of age.
COUNT IV: INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHTS PROTECTED BY ERISA

28 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
96. At all material times Plaintiff was subject to the terms of the severance policy,
which provided for severance pay in the event of termination.
97. The severance policy is reduced to a written document and accordingly is an
12
employee benefits plan as defined by ERISA.
position as Legal Counsel with Bombardier Transportation, and subsequently when his severance
pay was denied.
99. Had he not been involuntarily discharged for a pretextual cause, Plaintiff would
have been eligible for severance pay per the applicable policy.
100. The stated reason of the denial of severance pay was the termination of Plaintiff
for cause.
101. Contrary to Bombardier Transportation’s stated reason for terminating Plaintiff,
Bombardier Transportation’s actual reason for terminating Plaintiff involved interference with
his attainment of right(s) to which he might have been entitled if he had not been discharged.
102. Despite Plaintiff’s entitlement to severance pay under the terms of the policy,
Bombardier Transportation improperly terminated Plaintiff’s benefits in contravention of the
severance policy and Plaintiff’s rights under ERISA.
103. Plaintiff has met all of the conditions precedent to bringing this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the entry of judgement against Bombardier
Transportation and the Parent Corporation for damages including, but not limited to, past due
contractual benefits, future benefits, attorney’s fees due pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), plus
interest, costs incurred in bringing this action, and for such other relief as this Court deems
equitable, just, and proper.
13
COUNT V: GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA

HUMAN RELATIONS ACT
43 P.S. § 951 et seq.
105. The elements of a discrimination claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Act mirror the elements of a discrimination claim under Title VII.
106. Plaintiff is a male, and hence is a member of a class protected by the Pennsylvania
Human Relations Act.
Transportation.
position as Legal Counsel for Bombardier Transportation, and subsequently when his severance
was denied.
110. Plaintiff’s termination was motivated by his gender.
pretextual.
112. Plaintiff avers that the pre-dated notice of his rights under the OWPBA reflects
113. Bombardier Transportation and the Parent Corporation are unusual employers
who engage in gender-based discrimination against males.
114. The sexist statement made by Mr. Gartner stating that “women are smarter than
men” displays an unfortunate anti-male animus among senior management of Bombardier
14
Transportation.
Contracts Department who was a female was not terminated by Bombardier Transportation.
116. By failing to terminate the female employee(s), Bombardier Transportation
discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of gender.
117. Plaintiff avers that he is not seeking damages related to any severance pay in
relation to this claim arising under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
118. Plaintiff’s claim arising under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act is not
preempted by ERISA.
COUNT VI: AGE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA

HUMAN RELATIONS ACT
43 P.S. § 951 et seq.
120. The elements of a discrimination claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Act are identical to the elements of a discrimination claim under the ADEA.
121. Plaintiff is over forty (40) years of age, and hence is a member of a class protected
by the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
Transportation.
15
pay was denied.
125. Plaintiff’s termination was motivated by his age.
pretextual.
127. Plaintiff avers that the pre-dated notice of his rights under the OWPBA, which
was dated three days prior to his discharge, reflects that the decision to terminate him from his
employment was predetermined.
128. Plaintiff avers that the PMP was “approved” three (3) days prior to his
termination, further suggesting that any cause stated for his termination was pretextual.
Contracts Department who was significantly younger than Plaintiff was not terminated by
Bombardier Transportation.
130. By failing to terminate substantially younger employees, Bombardier
Transportation discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of age.
preempted by ERISA.
COUNT VII: GENDER-BASED HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION

OF THE PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS ACT
43 P.S. § 951 et seq.
133. The elements of a hostile work environment claim under the Pennsylvania Human
Relations Act are identical to the elements of a hostile work environment claim under Title VII.
134. Plaintiff is a male and, accordingly, is a member of a class protected by
16
Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
Transportation.
pay under the severance and furlough policy was denied.
138. Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of his gender in
the form of hostile and sexist insults to men in general and Plaintiff in particular made by Ms.
Hampton. Ms. Kimball, Mr. Gartner, and by other senior employees of Bombardier
Transportation.
139. Plaintiff avers that female employees were not subjected to similar treatment.
140. Plaintiff avers that the hostile and sexist insults directed towards him were severe
and pervasive.
141. Plaintiff avers that the negative employment action he suffered, namely his
termination, was caused in part by the hostile work environment that he experienced while
working as Legal Counsel for Bombardier Transportation.
preempted by ERISA.
VII. DAMAGES
144. Plaintiff has lost substantial back pay that provided additional income as a
17
direct and proximate result of Bombardier Transportation’s discriminatory and retaliatory
conduct towards him.
145. Plaintiff’s prospective future employment opportunities have been harmed as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ discriminatory and retaliatory conduct against
him, therefore Plaintiff is entitled to receive payment from Bombardier Transportation and from
the Parent Corporation of future employment opportunity damages.
146. Plaintiff is likely to suffer future loss of salary increases, resulting in a substantial
loss of front pay, therefore, Plaintiff entitled to receive payment of damages for future pay losses
from Bombardier Transportation and from the Parent Corporation.
147. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages flowing from Bombardier
Transportation’s intentional discriminatory actions taken against him.
148. Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief determining that Bombardier
Transportation and the Parent Corporation has discriminated against him.
149. Plaintiff is entitled to any and all severance pay due per the severance policy.
150. Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief determining that Bombardier
Transportation has violated the severance policy.
151. Plaintiff has incurred substantial expenses and is entitled to the payment by
Bombardier Transportation and by the Parent Corporation to him of the costs of this lawsuit,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands back pay, damages for prospective future
employment, damages for prospective harm in his present position, damages for intentional
and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress, punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory
18
relief, payment of any severance pay due and owing, and payment of his litigation costs,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees, plus interest.
Respectfully Submitted,
s/ James B. Lieber
James B. Lieber
PA I.D. No. 21748
Thomas M. Huber
PA I.D. No. 83053
Jacob M. Simon
PA I.D. No. 202610
Lieber & Hammer, P.C.
5528 Walnut Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15252
(412) 687-2231 (tel.)
(412) 687-3140 (fax)
Email: lhlawfirm@choiceonemail.com
19

EVANS v. BOMBARDIER, INC. Et Al Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EVANS v. BOMBARDIER, INC. Et Al Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 2:10-cv-00751-AJS Document 1 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WILLIAM S. EVANS, an ) NO.

and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. § 951 et seq.

U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), and on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(j)(3).

2. The events related in this Complaint occurred in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania,

in the Western District of Pennsylvania; therefore, venue is proper in this Court.

3. Plaintiff William S. Evans (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Mr. Evans”) is an adult

4. Defendant Bombardier, Inc. (hereinafter “the Parent Corporation”) is a foreign

Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3B 178.

5. Defendant Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) USA Inc. (hereinafter

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION

letter” from the EEOC on or about March 15, 2010.

7. Plaintiff is a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and was

previously employed by Defendant as a Legal Counsel.

and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Department of Bombardier Transportation (hereinafter “Contracts Department”) by means of an

offer letter dated May 2, 2005.

12. Plaintiff’s initial supervisor was Katherine Kimball, Contracts Director

ninety (90) days after he started to work for Bombardier Transportation.

13. Plaintiff’s terms of employment further included a guarantee of severance pay in

the event of his involuntary separation from Bombardier Transportation.

latest version of which is dated March 1, 2006.

based on the following calculations:

b. Plaintiff is entitled to thirty and five hundred ninety two thousandths

hundred eighty dollars ($126,480.00)) above fifty thousand dollars

($50,000.00) was seventy six thousand four hundred eighty dollars

($76,480.00), which is fifteen and two hundred ninety six thousandths

(15.296) times five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) of annual earnings over

annually above fifty thousand ($50,000.00);

c. Plaintiff is entitled to eight (8) additional weeks of severance pay based on

six thousand four hundred eighty dollars ($126,480.00).

hundred thirty two dollars and thirty one cents ($2,432.31).

Department “would fall apart” without the input provided by Plaintiff.

his work by his colleagues at Bombardier Transportation.

confidential legal matters.

Transportation by Jill Hampton (hereinafter “Ms. Hampton”) as part of a corporate

reorganization of Bombardier Transportation undertaken in July of 2008.

reported to Ms. Kimball.

decision to remove Plaintiff from his position as Legal Counsel.

36. Ms. Kimball publically berated Plaintiff.

a business outcome to her.

performance management process/plan.

39. Pursuant to his responsibilities as a Legal Counsel, Plaintiff received and

rendered for Bombardier Transportation.

hundred thousand dollars ($1,800,000.00).

the Parent Corporation.

43. Bombardier Transportation has been viewed by employees as a “women’s club”

due to hiring preferences favoring women.

Bombardier Transportation, publically stated at a meeting in Washington, D.C., of Bombardier

Transportation’s employees that “women are smarter than men.”

Bombardier Transportation is overcompensating for past gender imbalances.

apparently failed to mention her name in connection with a business accomplishment.

Transportation on or about May 22, 2009.

he worked at Bombardier Transportation.

51. Upon his termination from employment, Bombardier Transportation presented a

separation agreement to Plaintiff.

2008, long before Plaintiff’s actual date of termination.

reorganization of Bombardier Transportation but prior to the date of the PIP.

55. The 2009 Performance Management Process objectives (hereinafter “PMP” or

days before Plaintiff was terminated.

employee performance, to identify leadership commitments, core values, and to provide an