Wolfe v. Combined Insurance Company of America - Complaint

8/2/2019 Wolfe v. Combined Insurance Company of America - Complaint

1/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

CHARLES WOLFE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action File No.

)

vs. )

)

COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY ) Jury Trial Demand

OF AMERICA, ))

Defendants. )

)

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Charles Wolfe (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff), submits

this Complaint against Defendant Combined Insurance Company of America

(hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) based on the following allegations:

1.

This cause of action arises under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 621, et seq. (hereinafter the "ADEA"), seeking

a remedy for age discrimination in employment, all occurring while Plaintiff was

employed by the Defendant.

Case 1:12-cv-00524-JOF Document 1 Filed 02/17/12 Page 1 of 7


2/10

-2-

2.

Jurisdiction over the claims in this Complaint is conferred pursuant to 7(b)

of the ADEA.

3.

Venue is proper in this Court.

4.

Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Georgia and of the Northern District of

Georgia.

5.

Defendant Combined Insurance Company of America is a foreign

corporation doing business in the State of Georgia. Defendant Combined

Insurance Company of Americas principal address is 1000 N. Milwaukee Avenue,

6thl Floor, Glenview, Illinois 60025. The Defendant may be served upon its

registered agent for service of process, CT Corporation System, 1201 Peachtree

Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30361.

6.

At all times relevant Defendants are and were employers and covered under

the provisions of the ADEA.



3/10

-3-

Facts

7.

Defendant hired Plaintiff as an Insurance Agent in September of 1981.

8.

Plaintiff was employed with Defendant for over thirty (30) years.

9.

Plaintiff noticed that he was being singled out for certain behavior that

younger workers were not singled out for.

10.

Not only was the Plaintiff singled out, Defendant started writing up the

Plaintiff as well.

11.

On or about November 17, 2010, George Elmer told the Plaintiff that if he

did not retire he would be terminated.

12.

The Plaintiff was forced to retire after thirty (30) years of service and the

Defendant denied Plaintiff a severance package.



4/10

-4-

13.

After Defendant terminated the Plaintiff, Defendant hired a younger worker

to assume the Plaintiffs job duties.

COUNT I

(Age Discrimination)

14.

Plaintiff reincorporates the above allegations herein by reference.

15.

Plaintiffs claims have been pending with the EEOC more than 60 days. (See

attached Charge of Discrimination)

16.

Plaintiff has met all jurisdictional prerequisites to filing his Age

Discrimination claim.

17.

Defendant is Plaintiffs employer as that term is defined under 29 U.S.C.

623.

18.

At the time of Defendants decision to terminate the Plaintiff he was 62

years old.



5/10

-5-

19.

Defendants discrimination was willful and intentional and has directly

caused Plaintiff damages, including costs and attorneys fees, in an amount to be

determined at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment against the

Defendant as follows:

(a) Defendants be permanently enjoined from discriminating against

Plaintiff on any basis forbidden by the ADEA.

(b) That Defendants be ordered to formulate, distribute and implement a

written policy which does not discriminate in any manner which is a violation of

the ADEA.

(c) Defendants be ordered to rehire plaintiff into his former position or a

position substantially similar to that held prior to his discharge, with full salary,

seniority, and benefits running from the date of discharge;

(d) Defendants be ordered to pay Plaintiff back pay in an amount to

compensate Plaintiff for lost wages;

(e) Defendants be ordered to compensate, reimburse, and make whole the

Plaintiff for all the benefits he would have received had it not been for Defendants

illegal actions, including but not limited to pay, benefits, insurance costs, bonuses,



6/10

-6-

raises, training, promotions, and seniority. Plaintiff should be accorded these

illegally withheld benefits from the date Plaintiff was discharged until the date

Defendants tender substantially equivalent employment, with interest on the above

withheld amounts to the date of payment;

(f) That Plaintiff recover front pay if he is not rehired by Defendants as

requested in paragraph (c) above;

(g) That Plaintiff recover liquidated damages for Defendants willful

violations of the ADEA;

(h) That Plaintiff recover costs and expenses of litigation including an

award of reasonable attorney's fees.

(i) That Plaintiff recover prejudgment interest;

(j) A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of are unlawful

and void; and

(k) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Jury Demand

Plaintiff herein demands a trial by jury of all issues in this action.



7/10

-7-

This the 17th day of February, 2012.

PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC

By: /s/Larry A. Pankey

Larry A. Pankey

Georgia Bar No. 560725

Attorneys for Plaintiff

4360 Chamblee Dunwoody Road

Suite 500

Atlanta, Georgia 30331

770-670-6250

770-670-6249 (Fax)



8/10

Case 1:12-cv-00524-JOF Document 1-1 Filed 02/17/12 Page 1 of 1


9/10



10/10


Wolfe v. Combined Insurance Company of America - Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Wolfe v. Combined Insurance Company of America - Complaint