1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

KIMBERLY HANDSHOE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.

)

DEXTER AXLE COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

)

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, by counsel, alleges against the Defendant as follows:

1. The plaintiff is Kimberly Handshoe, a resident of Rome City, Indiana, and an 

employee of the Defendant at all material times to this Complaint.

2. The defendant is Dexter Axle Company, a company doing business at 500 South

7th Street, Albion, Indiana 46701. At all material times to this Complaint, the 

Defendant was an “employer” for the purposes of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990 (herein after ADA). 

3. Plaintiff filed her original Charge of Discrimination (EEOC No. 470-2016-00178), 

on October 8, 2015, a copy of which is attached hereto, incorporated herein, and 

made a part hereof as Exhibit “A”. The EEOC issued its Dismissal and Notice of 

Rights/Notice of Suit Rights on March 16, 2016 a copy of which is attached hereto 

and made a part hereof as Exhibit “B”. All administrative remedies have been 

exhausted and all jurisdictional prerequisites have been met for the filing of this

lawsuit.

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00144-WCL-SLC document 1 filed 05/04/16 page 1 of 6
2

4. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant for more than 18 years from on or about 

November 21, 1996 until her wrongful termination on or about April 29, 2015. 

5. Plaintiff’s husband was diagnosed with cancer in June 2013 and had chemotherapy 

and radiation prior to his November 2013 surgery. Because he was on Plaintiff’s 

workplace health insurance, he was able to complete several rounds of radiation, 

chemotherapy, and surgery. In order to treat the aggressive cancer, Plaintiff’s 

husband spent nearly fourteen days in the hospital and accumulated over two 

million dollars in associated medical bills. 

6. Plaintiff was promoted to Supervisor by Dexter Axle on or about July 12, 2013. 

Defendant explained to Plaintiff that she would be trained for her new position onthe-job while serving as a supervisor. 

7. Plaintiff performed her job duties to the reasonable expectations of Defendant.

8. On or about January 2015, Defendants changed, altered, and/or updated their 

previous policy regarding the consequences of an employee/supervisor’s failure to 

follow either lock out/tag out (“LOTO”) procedures or properly supervise a LOTO

procedure. Plaintiff was not notified of this change. 

9. Around March 2015, Plaintiff notified her direct supervisor that her husband was

again experiencing severe medical problems, likely related to his cancer, and that 

he would be having significant testing done in July 2015.

10. On or about April 24, 2015, Plaintiff observed a coworker performing a changeover on a machine with the machine doors open. The change-over had begun at an 

earlier time while Plaintiff was working in another area, and was nearly finished 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00144-WCL-SLC document 1 filed 05/04/16 page 2 of 6
3

when Plaintiff first observed it. When Plaintiff saw the employee flip the machine 

handle to start the machine, without removing the LOTO lock, Plaintiff knew that 

a LOTO had not been performed. 

11. A short time later, Plaintiff sent a text to Defendant’s Plant Supervision Officer to 

alert him that the coworker had been working on the machine without following 

proper LOTO procedures. 

12. On or about April 25, 2015, Defendant’s Plant Supervision Officer watched the 

plant security footage and confirmed that the coworker had not properly locked or 

tagged the machine prior to beginning work on the machine.

13. On or about April 27, 2015, Plaintiff had a meeting with Defendant’s Human 

Resource and Plant Supervision Officers, and Plaintiff was accused of failing to 

properly perform Supervisory functions when the coworker did not properly LOTO

the machine; in the alternative, the Officers asserted Plaintiff should have 

performed the LOTO on the machine herself.

14. Plaintiff rejected the assertions and reminded the Officers that Plaintiff had not been 

properly trained in her role as a Supervisor for LOTO procedures. Plaintiff further 

reminded the Officers that the coworker had been working for several minutes 

before Plaintiff arrived, was nearly finished with the change-over procedure and 

the coworker should have performed the LOTO before beginning work.

15. On or about April 28, 2015, Defendant suspended Plaintiff. 

16. On or about April 29, 2015, Plaintiff met with Defendant’s Human Resource and 

Plant Supervision Officers and she was terminated. During the termination meeting, 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00144-WCL-SLC document 1 filed 05/04/16 page 3 of 6
4

Plaintiff again rejected the Officer’s assertions and asked to meet with upper 

management regarding the termination.

17. On May 5, 2015, Plaintiff was granted a meeting with upper management regarding 

her termination. 

18. Defendant’s Human Resource and Plant Supervision Officers called Plaintiff on 

May 8, 2015 to inform her that her termination was still in effect. That same day 

Plaintiff called the Defendant’s corporate office. 

19. On May 13, 2015, the corporate office returned Plaintiff’s call and informed her

that her termination was still in effect. 

20. Defendant did not properly train Plaintiff on the appropriate Supervisory LOTO 

procedures, but instead notified the entire plant of general LOTO procedures with 

a discreet bulletin notification. Further, Plaintiff was never informed that the 

consequences for improperly performing Supervisory LOTO responsibilities 

included termination. On information and belief, other supervisors without 

spouses who are disabled and/or have used company medical benefits have not 

been terminated for LOTO infractions.

21. Plaintiff alleges that the proffered reason for termination - - that Plaintiff did not 

perform LOTO procedures - - was false and pretextual. In reality, Plaintiff had been 

discriminated against, retaliated against and was terminated on the basis of 

disability by association; Defendant knew that Plaintiff’s husband was suffering 

from recurring cancer, a serious health condition constituting a disability/perceived 

disability/record of impairment, which was likely going to require extensive 

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00144-WCL-SLC document 1 filed 05/04/16 page 4 of 6
5

hospital time and use of Plaintiff’s workplace health insurance, as it had in the past. 

Defendant’s actions were in violation of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights under 

the ADA. 

22. The Defendant's discriminatory and/or retaliatory conduct was the direct and 

proximate cause of the Plaintiff suffering the loss of her job and job related benefits 

including income as well as emotional distress, mental anguish, inconvenience, and 

other damages and injuries. 

23. The Defendant’s discriminatory and/or retaliatory conduct, furthermore, was 

intentional, knowing, willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of the Plaintiff's 

federally protected rights under the ADA. Plaintiff is entitled to receive punitive 

damages against the Defendant. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment against the Defendants for lost 

wages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and for all 

other just and proper relief in the premises.

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial 

by jury in this action.

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00144-WCL-SLC document 1 filed 05/04/16 page 5 of 6
6

Respectfully submitted,

CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES

/s/Lori W. Jansen

Christopher C. Myers, # 10043-02

Lori W. Jansen, # 19417-57

809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400

Fort Wayne, IN 46802

Telephone: (260) 424-0600

Facsimile: (260) 424-0712

Attorneys for Plaintiff

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00144-WCL-SLC document 1 filed 05/04/16 page 6 of 6