`
`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