throbber
Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 1 of 37
`
`ROSA (“ROSE”) STILLO,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.:
`
`
`March 11, 2022
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES
`MIDWEST, LLC
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`The Plaintiff, Rosa Stillo, for and as her Complaint, alleges upon personal
`
`information as to her own actions and interactions, and upon information and belief as to
`
`all other matters, as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`The Plaintiff is Rosa Stillo, also known as Rose Stillo (hereinafter “Stillo”),
`
`who resides at 63 Revere Lane in Fairfield, Connecticut.
`
`2.
`
`The Defendant, Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest, LLC (hereinafter,
`
`“Walgreens”) employs more than twenty employees.
`
`3.
`
`Walgreens is incorporated in the State of Illinois, duly licensed to do
`
`business in the State of Connecticut having a principal place of business located at 108
`
`Wilmot Road, Deerfield, Illinois. Walgreens employs more than twenty (20) employees
`
`in the State of Connecticut, and therefore is subject to both federal and state statutes relating
`
`to discrimination, retaliation, and medical leave, including, inter alia, the Connecticut Fair
`
`Employment Practices Act (the “FEPA”) C.G.S. § 46a-60 et seq., the anti-retaliation
`
`provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (the
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 2 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`“ADEA”), the anti-retaliation and anti-interference provisions of the Connecticut Family
`
`and Medical Leave Act (the “CT FMLA”), the anti-retaliation and anti-interference
`
`provisions of the Conn. Gen. Stat. §35-61pp and the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29
`
`U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. (the “FMLA”).
`
`4.
`
`As an employer in the State of Connecticut, Walgreens is also subject to
`
`liability for violating its statutory obligation to provide an employee a copy of her
`
`personnel file within ten (10) business days of receiving a signed written request for such
`
`materials, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-128b(b).
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`5.
`
`On September 22, 2021, Stillo dual-filed a complaint with the Connecticut
`
`Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (“CHRO”) and with the United States’
`
`Equal Rights and Opportunities Commission (“EEOC”), alleging (i) adverse employment
`
`actions including unjustified discipline and wrongful termination in retaliation for
`
`reporting an objectively good faith belief that she suffered age discrimination while
`
`employed at Walgreens in violation of the FEPA and the ADA; and (ii) interference with
`
`and retaliation for exercising, her right to seek medical leave due to a disabling condition
`
`of stress-related migraine headaches in violation of the CT FMLA and the FMLA.
`
`6.
`
`Stillo timely dual-filed an administrative charge with the CHRO and the
`
`EEOC on September 22, 2021, which was fewer than 180 days of the most recent unlawful
`
`conduct by Walgreens against Stillo.
`
`7.
`
`Stillo was awarded a Release of Jurisdiction (“ROJ”) from the CHRO, on
`
`December 16, 2021. A true and correct copy of the ROJ notice letter is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 1. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter to Stillo on January 13, 2022. A true
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 3 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`and correct copy of the right to sue letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Accordingly,
`
`Stillo has exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to both her federal and
`
`statutory claims.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal statutory claims
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1342, and supplemental jurisdiction over the related state
`
`claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`9.
`
`The District of Connecticut is the proper venue for this dispute under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1391(b), since a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the
`
`clams alleged herein occurred in this judicial district, and since the majority of the
`
`witnesses and evidence are located in this judicial district.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A. Introduction
`
`10.
`
`After 30 years of devoted service as a Walgreens employee, and after 15
`
`years as the trusted manager of the Walgreens Pharmacy in Westport, Connecticut, Stillo
`
`had developed a good faith and objectively reasonable belief that Walgreens had a pattern
`
`of fabricating discipline against employees in their 50s and 60s, in order to justify
`
`terminating them, or to force them to quit or retire.
`
`11.
`
`Stillo developed this belief after her supervisors made her the target of a
`
`series of unwarranted disciplinary action that were neither consistent with Walgreens’
`
`Progressive Discipline Plan, nor imposed against younger employees who engaged in the
`
`same conduct that allegedly gave rise to the discipline instituted against Stillo.
`
`12.
`
`Stillo engaged in the protected activity of making a written report putting
`
`Walgreens on notice of her belief that Walgreens was engaged in unlawful age
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 4 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`discrimination against older employees, including herself, to her supervisors, and revealed
`
`that she was consulting with an attorney to discuss whether her claims had merit.
`
`13.
`
`In response, Walgreens put Stillo on an unpaid suspension, a negative
`
`employment action that was in apparent retaliation for making a complaint about systemic
`
`and pervasive age discrimination at Walgreens, in violation of state and federal law.
`
`14.
`
`The stress of being placed on unpaid leave triggered stress-related migraines
`
`in Stillo, who suffers from chronic migraine headaches. On July 1, 2021, Stillo submitted
`
`an application to take a medical leave of absence to obtain medical treatment.
`
`15. Walgreens terminated Stillo on July 6, 2021, five days after she submitted
`
`her application for a medical leave of absence, then backdated Stillo’s termination date in
`
`its records to June 29, 2021, two days before she applied for disability leave.
`
`16.
`
`On July 12, 2021, Stillo received an email stating that her application was
`
`denied because Walgreens’ records indicated that she had been terminated before
`
`submitting the application.
`
`17.
`
`Upon information and belief, Walgreens falsely back-dated Stillo’s
`
`termination date for the express purpose of preventing her from going on protected
`
`disability leave, despite being on notice that she suffered from a chronic migraine
`
`condition. This conduct was in violation of the the non-retaliation and non-interference
`
`provisions of the ADEA, the CT FMLA, and the FMLA.
`
`18.
`
`Finally, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-128b(b), Walgreens failed to
`
`provide a copy of Stillo’s personnel file within 10 days after receiving a written request for
`
`a copy of that file and a signed authorization from Stillo, on August 11, 2021. It did not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 5 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`provide a copy of Stillo’s personnel file upon receipt of her CHRO complaint, which
`
`contained an allegation that the failure to produce that file was a statutory violation.
`
`B. Background as to Stillo’s Employment with Walgreens
`
`19.
`
`Stillo began her employment as a Pharmacist with Walgreens in Illinois in
`
`1991. She remained employed at various Walgreens Pharmacy locations in Illinois, and
`
`Connecticut until July 6, 2021, when she was terminated.
`
`20.
`
`In approximately 1995, Stillo was promoted to Pharmacy Manager in
`
`Illinois. When she relocated to Connecticut, she once again attained this title in 2001, and
`
`she remained a Pharmacy Manager until the date of her termination.
`
`21.
`
`Stillo was a devoted employee, spearheading the operations of several
`
`Walgreens Pharmacy retail locations until 2004 when the location at 880 Post Road East
`
`in Westport, Connecticut (hereinafter the “Westport Pharmacy”) opened under her
`
`supervision. Stillo remained the Pharmacy Manager of the Westport Pharmacy from its
`
`2004 opening until July 6, 2021, when she was terminated.
`
`C. A 2013 Walgreens Policy Change Led to an Inherent Contradiction in the
`
`Chain of Command Between the Pharmacy Manager and the Store Manager
`
`22.
`
`In her capacity as Pharmacy Manager, Stillo was responsible for ensuring
`
`the regular safe and efficient operations of the Pharmacy, including the accurate filling of
`
`prescriptions, adherence to pharmacy regulations, adherence to Walgreens’ policies and
`
`procedures, and ensuring the safeguard and maintenance of customer data and information.
`
`23.
`
`On average, Stillo supervised approximately one to three Pharmacy
`
`Technicians during each of her shifts.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 6 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Until approximately 2013, Stillo reported to a Pharmacy Supervisor, who
`
`was a licensed pharmacist. Each Pharmacy Supervisor supervised the Pharmacy Managers
`
`at 15-20 stores within each Walgreens Pharmacy district. That Pharmacy Supervisor also
`
`addressed any disciplinary issues that arose within the Pharmacy itself that could not be
`
`resolved by the Pharmacy Manager.
`
`25.
`
`During the time that she was supervised by a Pharmacy Supervisor who was
`
`also a licensed pharmacist, and who therefore understood the personnel needs and
`
`operational difficulties of a busy retail pharmacy, Stillo was never discipline under
`
`Walgreens’ Progressive Discipline Policy (hereinafter the “PDP”).
`
`26.
`
`However, in approximately 2013, Walgreens changed the structure of the
`
`chain of command within its retail pharmacies such that the Pharmacy Manager no longer
`
`reported to a licensed pharmacist, but rather to a Store Manager, who also managed the
`
`retail operations outside the pharmacy at each Walgreens location.
`
`27.
`
`Store Managers were not licensed pharmacists. Therefore, the Pharmacy
`
`Managers no longer reported to supervisors who understood the needs of a pharmacy from
`
`both a retail and a regulatory standpoint.
`
`28.
`
`Though the Store Manager’s main responsibility was supervising the retail
`
`operations of the store and the Pharmacy, the Store Manager had an additional role: to be
`
`a Pharmacy Technician within the Pharmacy when the Pharmacy was not sufficiently
`
`staffed. During the time that the Store Manager was performing Pharmacy Technician
`
`duties, therefore, the Store Manager was technically simultaneously both the Pharmacy
`
`Manager’s supervisor as to retail operations, but was also supervised by the Pharmacy
`
`Manager insofar as Pharmacy Technicians were supposed to fill prescriptions, make calls
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 7 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`to customers about their prescriptions, and comply with all policies, standards, and
`
`regulations that govern a retail pharmacy.
`
`D. An Initial Attempt to Fabricate Discipline Against Stillo was Deemed by
`
`Walgreens to be Meritless
`
`29.
`
`In 2019, a Store Manager named Michelle Haydu fabricated discipline
`
`against Stillo for a minor incident and issued her a Final Written Warning (“FWW”), but
`
`Stillo provided Human Resources copies of text messages from Haydu that proved that
`
`multiple statements in the FWW were false.
`
`30.
`
`As a result of Stillo’s factual statements, Human Resources expunged the
`
`FWW from Stillo’s file.
`
`31.
`
`Shortly thereafter, Haydu was transferred to another Walgreens retail store,
`
`but upon information and belief, she received no discipline and was not terminated for
`
`falsifying disciplinary documents.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Haydu was replaced as Store Manager by Steven Dillon.
`
`Dillon appeared to feel that Stillo’s tenure in the Store undermined his
`
`authority. He also seemed to resent that she felt comfortable alerting him to the fact that
`
`he often underperformed in his responsibilities as a Pharmacy Technician, including failing
`
`to call customers about un-retrieved prescriptions (known as “adherence calls”), his failure
`
`to perform in his role as a Pharmacy Technician during the first two hours of many shifts
`
`(a practice known as “CODE GREENS,”) and, toward the end of Stillo’s employment,
`
`calling out his failure to perform COVID vaccinations, as many Pharmacy Technicians
`
`were required to do after becoming trained to do so in the early months of 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 8 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`34.
`
`Dillon would seek to assert his authority over Stillo by regularly nitpicking
`
`her behavior in a confrontational way in an attempt to trigger her temper, despite the fact
`
`that Stillo’s conduct was in conformity with Walgreens policies and her professional
`
`obligations as a pharmacist.
`
`35.
`
`In fact, because of the friction between their roles, Dillon and Stillo often
`
`had conflicted conversations, with each of them raising their voices to the other on a regular
`
`basis. These disagreements were so frequent and unremarkable that another employee,
`
`Lynn Raytar, would occasionally comment that they bickered “like a married couple.”
`
`36.
`
`Neither Dillon nor Stillo was ever disciplined for insubordination as a result
`
`of these episodes of raised voices, and this type of interaction became accepted by their
`
`colleagues as simply part of their working relationship.
`
`E. Stillo Continued to Perform Her Duties, and Cover for Dillon’s Shortcomings,
`
`Despite the Stress of the Pandemic
`
`37.
`
`In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic began, and like other front-line workers,
`
`Stillo had to go to work under unprecedented stressful conditions, and her migraine
`
`symptoms began to increase in severity.
`
`38.
`
`During the time between March 2020 and February 2021, Stillo had to
`
`confront regular staffing shortages in the Westport Pharmacy, often filling in when
`
`Pharmacy Technicians had to quarantine or refuse to come in due to the high-risk nature
`
`of working with the public during a pandemic.
`
`39.
`
`As a result of these difficult conditions, the already fast-paced work
`
`environment at the Westport Pharmacy became even faster paced and more stressful,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 9 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`forcing all the employees to deal with each other’s loss of temper under stress on an
`
`increasingly regular basis.
`
`40.
`
`Stillo continued to work long hours and show up faithfully for work so that
`
`her customers could receive their medications, even in the summer of 2020 when the
`
`stressful pandemic conditions blended with the stress of the prolonged power outages
`
`caused by Tropical Storm Isaias.
`
`F. Dillon and Andolfo Unfairly Retaliate Against Stillo for Having Exercised Her
`
`Managerial Authority over a Pharmacy Technician
`
`41.
`
`On or about February 26, 2021, a Pharmacy Technician, Dominique Liggins
`
`claimed to be having a panic attack with a racing heart because of a personal problem she
`
`was experiencing outside of work.
`
`42.
`
`Stillo, who had been successfully managing Liggins as her direct supervisor
`
`for years, and who was familiar with the personal problems Liggins was experiencing, was
`
`notified at home that Dillon intervened that morning and called an ambulance for Liggins
`
`after speaking to her in her car. Dillon never notified Stillo of what was happening. Despite
`
`the fact that Stillo was now short-handed for her afternoon shift, Dillon went home early.
`
`43.
`
`That evening, Dillon sent Stillo a text message confirming that he knew that
`
`Liggins had not actually been ill and stated, “Between us its [sic] man trouble and not her
`
`heart.”
`
`44.
`
`Nevertheless, on or about March 1, 2021, when Stillo questioned Liggins
`
`about the episode, Liggins began to raise her voice and became very defensive. She
`
`screamed in anger, now with Dillon present.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 10 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`45.
`
`Dillon did not intervene, nor did he enforce any part of the Walgreens’ PDP
`
`against Liggins, even though Liggins was not conducting herself appropriately toward
`
`Stillo.
`
`46.
`
`Stillo explained her side of the story, and informed Dillon that he should
`
`have counseled Liggins for raising her voice to Stillo, rather than reprimanding Stillo for
`
`managing a Pharmacy Technician whose feigned illness had negatively impacted
`
`pharmacy staffing levels.
`
`47.
`
`In a transparent attempt to avoid the consequences of her actions, Liggins
`
`then requested a leave of absence, which was granted by Dillon, and subsequently
`
`transferred to another Walgreens store.
`
`48.
`
`Approximately a week later, on March 8, 2021, Stillo was summoned to a
`
`meeting with Dillon and his own supervisor, District Manager Matthew Andolfo.
`
`49.
`
`During that meeting, Dillon and Andolfo accused Stillo of behaving
`
`inappropriately despite the fact that they had been aware that she was not really ill. Stillo
`
`found herself defending her actions as Liggins’ manager to Dillon and Andolfo, pointing
`
`out that Dillon’s text messages demonstrated that the entire incident was not due to illness.
`
`50.
`
`Two months later, on May 20, 2021, Dillon and Andolfo approached Stillo
`
`again, unannounced. They showed Stillo the statistics for the Westport Pharmacy, stating
`
`that the Westport Pharmacy was behind on so-called “adherence calls,” which are calls to
`
`customers regarding their un-retrieved medications.
`
`51.
`
`However, per Walgreens’ policy, while the Pharmacy Manager is
`
`responsible for ensuring the orderly operations of the Pharmacy, the regular performance
`
`of the adherence calls is among the daily responsibilities of the Pharmacy Technicians. In
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 11 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`fact, as Store Manager, it was Dillon’s responsibility to perform the duties of Pharmacy
`
`Technicians when other Pharmacy Technicians are overwhelmed or not onsite to perform
`
`those calls.
`
`52.
`
`Although it was not forbidden for a Pharmacy Manager to aid in performing
`
`technician adherence calls, it was also not usually possible for a Head Pharmacist to
`
`perform that task while safely performing their other duties, due to the volume of
`
`prescriptions that each Walgreens pharmacy had to fill each day.
`
`53.
`
`Stillo pointed out to Dillon and Andolfo that keeping up with adherence
`
`calls was the responsibility of the Pharmacy Technicians, including Dillon himself. She
`
`pointed out to Dillon and Andolfo that if workload prohibits the pharmacy staff from
`
`executing these adherence calls safely, then Dillon himself could perform the technician
`
`calls ensuring the accuracy of the prescriptions filled at the Westport Pharmacy. Thus,
`
`Stillo made these recommendations to her managers on how to improve the statistics of the
`
`Westport Pharmacy in a good faith attempt to work with her managers.
`
`54.
`
`Dillon continued to chastise Stillo for failing to perform duties that were in
`
`fact the responsibilities of Dillon himself, along with other Pharmacy Technicians. Dillon
`
`refused to listen to any of Stillo’s recommendations. However, at no point did either Dillon
`
`or Andolfo tell Stillo that she was being disciplined, nor did either of them mention that
`
`the meeting was part of any discipline under the PDP.
`
`55. When Stillo returned to work for her next shift, Dillon ostracized and
`
`isolated her, and this conduct continued consistently for the remainder of Stillo’s
`
`employment at the Westport Pharmacy. He rarely spoke to her, and he refused to enter the
`
`pharmacy to perform his responsibilities as a Pharmacy Technician in the first two hours
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 12 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`of the 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. shift, which was one of his duties as Store Manager. This long-
`
`standing practice at a Walgreens pharmacy is so routine that it has its own name and is
`
`known as a “CODE GREEN.”
`
`56.
`
`Stillo experienced continuous stress during this time because of the
`
`emotional discomfort she was in while being ostracized and having to ensure that Dillon’s
`
`responsibilities were covered during this period, since he would not enter the Westport
`
`Pharmacy to perform his duties when Stillo was working. The stress manifested itself most
`
`notably in a marked increase in the migraine headaches to which she was susceptible,
`
`during the period from April through early June, the migraines were reasonably responsive
`
`to treatments provided by her physicians.
`
`57.
`
`But because she was the only person whom Dillon had singled out for this
`
`type of treatment, Stillo began to believe that Dillon’s conduct was motivated by her age,
`
`particularly since it was ongoing, since it was not directed toward any other, younger
`
`employees, and because upon reflection, Stillo had noticed a number of older employees
`
`separating from Walgreens without commenting that they were retiring or had found other
`
`employment.
`
`58.
`
`On June 15, 2021, though there had been no further disciplinary incidents,
`
`Dillon handed Stillo a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) that fabricated a series of
`
`minor disciplinary incidents both before and after February 26, 2021.
`
`59.
`
`The PIP was facially non-compliant with the Walgreens’ PDP, which
`
`provides for the following steps: (1) verbal counseling, (2) written warning, (3) final
`
`written warning, (4) termination. The PDP requires that all steps be documented. After
`
`each step, a failure to improve after the discipline is implemented and the employee is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 13 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`counseled can result in further discipline, including potential termination. Stillo had never
`
`been disciplined under the PDP before, and therefore any PIP was premature, and should
`
`have been preceded by verbal counseling and a written warning.
`
`60.
`
`The PIP was also substantively false. The PIP purports to be based on lack
`
`of performance and states that Dillon had meetings with Stillo on January 19, 2021,
`
`February 23, 2021, March 16, 2021, March 29, 2021, April 6, 2021, April 13, 2021, May
`
`11, 2021, and May 18, 2021, about performance problems.
`
`61.
`
`Upon information and belief, none of those meetings occurred, and if an
`
`informal meeting did occur on one of those dates, it was a casual workplace interaction,
`
`not contemporaneously documented, and not discipline under the PDP.
`
`62.
`
`The only actual meetings that Dillon and Andolfo had with Stillo to discuss
`
`performance metrics and behavior had been the disastrous ones on March 8, 2021, and May
`
`20, 2021, neither of which was even mentioned in the PIP. Additionally, neither Dillon
`
`nor Andolfo ever informed Stillo that either of those meetings constituted discipline under
`
`the PDP or that she was at risk of being put on a PIP. Furthermore, Stillo was never given
`
`any documentation of discipline directed at her as required by the PDP.
`
`63.
`
`Upon information and belief, Dillon, with either the actual or constructive
`
`knowledge of Walgreen’s, fabricated a record of prior discipline so that the PIP would
`
`appear to comport with Walgreens’ PDP, that states that a PIP is only to be used “after
`
`verbal counseling has not resulted in improved and sustained performance.”
`
`64.
`
`Though the PDP does permit managers to skip steps and either terminate an
`
`employee or place them on a PIP for severe conduct, such acceleration of the PDP is
`
`reserved for conduct such as sleeping on the job, destruction of company property, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 14 of 37
`
`violations of safety rules. However, in other cases where similar minor infractions had
`
`occurred, such as Liggins raising her voice to Stillo and Haydu falsifying disciplinary
`
`records, employees were simply transferred to another store, and were not disciplined at
`
`all.
`
`65.
`
`Upon information and belief, the false statements contained in the PIP were
`
`not a proper application of the PDP, or even an acceleration of PDP steps because of
`
`insubordinate conduct, but rather a pretext attempt to force Stillo to leave her employment
`
`or justify her termination. The statements within the PIP themselves, even if they had been
`
`true, demonstrate that no acceleration of the PDP was warranted under the PIP.
`
`66.
`
`Reading this false information, which resembled the pretextual FWW from
`
`2019, Stillo began to believe that Dillon and Andolfo were fabricating a paper trail to force
`
`her to quit or justify terminating her, and she found herself under an enormous amount of
`
`stress and strain and lost her temper as her migraine symptoms flared.
`
`67.
`
`Dillon began to goad Stillo by continuing to berate her instead of calmly
`
`and professionally trying to discuss the PIP with Stillo, in an apparent attempt to trigger
`
`Stillo to lose her temper.
`
`68. Within minutes both Dillon and Stillo were raising their voices with one
`
`another, and both used foul language, including using the “f” word.
`
`69.
`
`In prior interactions between Dillon and Stillo, Dillon had condoned the use
`
`of this type of language between the two of them by never reprimanding her for it, never
`
`changing his own conduct in regularly using this language, and even affirmatively saying
`
`in one text message to Stillo, “Not everyone can say FU like we can.”
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 15 of 37
`
`70.
`
`Because her disabling migraine symptoms were flaring up, Stillo had to
`
`leave the room abruptly before the meeting was over, knowing that any further interaction
`
`with Dillon could induce another severe migraine attack that could take days to recover
`
`from.
`
`71.
`
`Though the PIP was extraordinarily stressful for Stillo, the tenor of the
`
`conversation between her and Dillon was no different than any of their previous conflicts.
`
`Dillon did not make any statements indicating that Stillo’s conduct during the meeting
`
`would warrant further discipline, suspension, or termination.
`
`72.
`
`Following this meeting, Stillo reflected upon the number of employees in
`
`their 40s and 50s who had been forced out based on unfair or unequally enforced
`
`disciplinary measures, and realizing that she knew of at least two other such employees as
`
`to whom she believed this to be the case, she sought legal counsel to investigate whether
`
`she and other older employees were being discriminated against because of their age.
`
`73.
`
`On June 18, 2021, Stillo’s attorney sent a letter to Andolfo asking him to
`
`reduce the subject of any meeting with Stillo to writing and for counsel to be copied on
`
`those writings.
`
`74.
`
`Between June 15, 2021, and June 28, 2021, Stillo did not receive any further
`
`documentation of additional supposed discipline.
`
`75.
`
`On June 28, 2021, Stillo, through a letter from her counsel, informed
`
`Walgreens, Dillon, and Andolfo, that she believed that Walgreens had discriminated
`
`against her, and potentially other employees, because of their age. (Exhibit 3)
`
`76.
`
`On June 29, 2021, two weeks after the unwarranted PIP was imposed on
`
`Stillo, despite no further discipline being issued against Stillo, and after weeks of isolation
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 16 of 37
`
`and ostracization in the workplace as her migraine symptoms became more and more
`
`severe due to stress, Andolfo and Dillon once again confronted Stillo and placed her on an
`
`unpaid suspension of indefinite length, claiming that it was for “unprofessional conduct.”
`
`77.
`
`Stillo was not given any information as to how long her suspension might
`
`last.
`
`78.
`
`Upon information and belief, Walgreens would not have placed Stillo on
`
`suspension if she had not informed them that she was seeking counsel to determine whether
`
`she had a claim for discrimination based on age, and the decision to place her on suspension
`
`was an act of retaliation for making a complaint about unlawful age discrimination in
`
`violation of the CT FEPA.
`
`79.
`
`Being placed on suspension with no information immediately after she had
`
`been placed on an unwarranted PIP, yelled at, humiliated, and then suspended after 30
`
`years of devoted service, triggered a stress-induced migraine episode for Stillo, and she
`
`needed to seek treatment and recuperate before she could safely discharge her duties as a
`
`Pharmacy Manager.
`
`80.
`
`On July 1, 2021, Stillo applied for disability leave, and claim number
`
`510632714410001 (short term) and claim number C106300204500157AA (long term)
`
`confirmation letters were issued.
`
`81.
`
`At the time that Stillo applied for disability leave, she was an employee of
`
`Walgreens.
`
`82.
`
`At the time that Stillo applied for disability leave, Stillo was disabled within
`
`the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. §46a-41(15) and under 28 CFR 25.108 as the symptoms
`
`of her migraine headaches affected her neurological system, resulting in a physical or
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 17 of 37
`
`mental impairment that substantially limited Stillo’s ability to perform major life activities
`
`including performing manual tasks, manipulating small objects, seeing, hearing, sleeping,
`
`standing, counting, lifting bending, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting
`
`with others, and working. As such, Stillo was eligible for disability leave.
`
`83.
`
`On July 3, 2021, and July 5, 2021, Andolfo called Stillo, even though she
`
`was ostensibly on medical leave, but Stillo was unable to answer the phone on either
`
`occasion. Andolfo did not leave a message.
`
`84.
`
`On July 6, 2021, Andolfo left Stillo a voicemail message terminating her
`
`employment, “effective immediately.”
`
`85.
`
`On July 12, 2021, Stillo received correspondence from Walgreens stating
`
`that her termination had been backdated to June 29, 2021. Exhibit 4.
`
`86.
`
`Upon information and belief, Walgreens would not have terminated Stillo
`
`based on the PIP alone, because it did not place her on unpaid leave until after she hired an
`
`attorney and put Walgreens on notice of her good faith belief that it had engaged in age
`
`discrimination in violation of the CT FEPA.
`
`87.
`
`Upon information and belief, Walgreens compounded
`
`its retaliatory
`
`suspension of Stillo by terminating her on July 6, 2021, in retribution for seeking disability
`
`leave, then backdating the date of her termination on her medical leave request
`
`documentation with the intent to interfere with her right to take disability leave under the
`
`CT FMLA and the FMLA.
`
`88.
`
`In a final act of retaliation, Walgreens did not produce Stillo’s personnel
`
`file upon receiving a written request and release from Stillo for such file. The request was
`
`made on August 11, 2021, and pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-128b(b), no personnel
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 18 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`file was produced by August 25, 2021, which is the statutory deadline for the production
`
`of such file.
`
`89.
`
`Stillo notified Walgreens again of its failure to produce the file by filing a
`
`complaint with the CHRO on September 22, 2021, but again Walgreens did not provide
`
`Stillo with a copy of her personnel file, a second violation of its statutory obligation to do
`
`so.
`
`90.
`
`Complaint.
`
`LEGAL CLAIMS
`
`COUNT I
`RETALIATION AGAINST STILLO IN VIOLATION OF
`29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (the “ADEA”)
`
`incorporates by reference all preceding allegations
`
`Stillo
`
`in
`
`this
`
`91.
`
`Stillo made a complaint to Walgreens about unlawful practices constituting
`
`age discrimination. At all times, Stillo’s good faith belief that unlawful age discrimination
`
`was occurring at Walgreens was both subjectively and objectively reasonable.
`
`92.
`
`Instead of taking Stillo’s complaints at face value and investigating whether
`
`they had merit, as required by law, Walgreen’s undertook to level discipline against Stillo
`
`based on fabricated offenses, and in a fashion that was contrary to its established policies,
`
`procedures, and practices.
`
`93.
`
`Additionally, Walgreens imposed a PIP on Stillo, again without cause and
`
`in violation of the PDP, which requires documentation of verbal warnings prior to the
`
`imposition of a PIP.
`
`94. Walgreens put Stillo on suspension, without pay, for an indefinite period of
`
`time, without cause, and in violation of the PDP.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00379 Document 1 Filed 03/11/22 Page 19 of 3

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket