CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION 7TM |acency CHARGE NUMBER
vee ing tenis tonne by the Pr, scy Act of 1974; Seo Privacy Act Statement before p teoe AYo-2oo-43b49
and EEOC

State or local Agency, if any

WAUE (Indicate Ar., Ns., Ars.)

HOWE TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)

Mr. Gary W. Reese (630) 983-7656
STREET ADORESS CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE DATE OF BIRTH
1395 Deep Run Road, Naperville, IL 60540 5/16/47

NAMED 1S THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE,
STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (rr wore than one 115t below.)

WANE
General Electric Company

WUUBEA OF EMPLOYEES,

WEWBERS [TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)

(630) 573-3218

STREET ADDRESS ITY, STATE ANO ZIP CODE COUNTY

2015 Spring Road, Suite 400, Oak Brook, IL 60521 DuPage

WAUE TELEPHONE WUWSER (Include area Code)
STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE AKC 2IP Cone county +S

TAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (check appropriate boxtes))

Conace OC) coron C)sex Cy reticion

Oretacration FE Xace Oorsasterty

Co natronan onrore
Dorner tspectrys

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE
EARLIEST LATEST

4/29/2003 8/1/2004
ium) CONTINUING ACTION

THE PARTICULARS ARE

(If adeitional space 1s needed, attach extra sheet (s)):

See attached sheet which is incorporated herein by reference.

RECEIMED Eki

| “MAR 1.8 2008 |

ro
POCA OIE

by] I want this charge filed with botn the EEOC and the State or]

NOTARY - (When necessary for State and Local Requirements)

Yocal Agency, if any. I will advise the agencies if I change my
address or telephone number and cooperate Tully with them in the
Processing of my charge 1n accordance with their procedures.

T Swear or affirm that I nave. .
At Is teue to the best of my Browieape,, ipedier.

T declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing 1s true

ei ety, 2 Kaen

Ghacging Paciy (steneture}

vate 3/17/04

Notary Public, State of Minois
SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINAgT Notary Public, State
hey, a Commission Expires May 12, 2006

sugschtBe6 ANo SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE

EOG FORM 5 (Rev. 00/92)
EXHIBIT A

(Day, month, and ygar)
3/17/04 Lizaghy beh ee


° “TM

Jey. 12786) CIVIL COVER SHEET

he JS~44 civil covet sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing end service of

law, except
H the Clerk of Cot

(2) PLAINTIFFS

ur for the purpose oF inliating the civil docket sheet (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM)

DOCKE TEBenpants.

(DB). county oF RESIOENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF LVN
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

Pleadings or other Paper req is
as provided by local mules of court, This form; approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the t

MAY 27 IEE LECTRIE Company
Ee YORE Cer gocatiin

COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST re DEFENDANT peikeng

FF CASES ON) ONLY)
psés, USE THE LOCATION OF THE

(6) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE, NUMBER)
“Naki Gs Avo Bow Bada
BREDA Tins, Lhd (B50 Ey Oe! LA,
BL

CS wAretity 2. COGOS

ia

in (PUCE-AN 2K BEONE 55K FOR PLAN

|. 1S OF JURISDICTION (PLACE AN IC NONE BoxONY) | HII. CITIZENSHIP! OF bpp
N, BAS' For Diversity Cases 01 Mone DOLFER DEFENDANT
2 @ Federal Question Citizen of This State a . a te ir
Ds US, Goverment (U.S. Government Nota Party)
; ' G« Diversity Citizen of Another State 02 D2
52 US. Goverment “” pncteste Citizenship of Parton
" Citizen oF Sub} ofaos as
Foreign Cour
7 (PLACE AN “X" IN ONE BOX ont)
yore . joved trom = 3. Remanded trom Reinstated or snetier clewea Multia ‘2
a Rem > D4 Rel Osa u Os Mulicistict
m poten 0? ciate Court Appeliste Court Reopened (speclty) Utgation - ar sodprnent
V. NATURE OF SUIT _ (PLACE AN "xX" IN ONE BOX ONLY) : : 1
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY' BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY je} re viae 22
Caw © 910 Arpiane 0552 Persons! injury ~ G e70 ober Foes & brug 122 Appeal 28 URS the Bate Long Peon
D190 Miter Act D918 Alpine Product. Meo, Malpractice Oes Bre Releted Seture: 1 429 Wahcraveet D 490 Banta ang Banking
Be nepeloble rearward > sco ei OMS Beonat tay = ceo ahora #1 USE 28 USC 187 ase Commertanor
1 ho Recomy of Overpayment | 01970 Sadat 101308 Aspesios Personal | $40 RA & Toc PROPERTY RIGHTS | Bay proanen
ou aa 1D 980 Froeral Empioyers® Injury Product Uabitry | 1 680 Airing lege. 1 020 copmigh : Came orem ane
1182 Recovery of Defauked ‘pow broom * persona, propenry | © %° Secueatenst 990 Patere Dm Seen Seren
atten) 1 348 Marios Product 12 270 he Frou 0 690 Orner 2 840 Tradernags om Secon sCommoctien!
uapimy D971 Thahin Ue Customer
D1 Bese Senet") 280 Mott hice D300 one: Peon” TABOR SOCIAL SECURITY | °°?" SyugRy.nevnae
pw 0 288 Molo Vehicle: Propeny Damage . a 1D 89) Apicunural Acts
3 Siockhotdert Procuct UaDliny 365 Propeny Damage 0790 Fax Labor Standards’ | © ¥81 HA 1985m Gi 692 Economic Stabilization Act
{1D 198 Contact Product Lisbihy - CY 720° Caporngmt: elation. S 1D 893 Environmental Maners,
CIVIL RIGHTS _" [PRISONER PETITIONS|
REAL PROPERTY. ©1720 Loporntgmt Reponing
pine ara Concecmaten aay D810 Motions fo Vaeme & Disclosure act °
pie Em Nae eye: 1D 740 Raltway Labor Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS
Boe pert ne Eetrent Accommodations © $90 General .
240 ‘Toma wo Land 1D $35 Death Penay 1D 780 Orne: Lapor Lhigation 0 Tae +
B at ured Lay Bite coher Cot Rights Dio Marcas Bom | oer ee el
(AY Other Beal Property: CM! Fighas mp, si
Dm» : | oa 1971S = hig Paty

IVIL STATUTE UNDER WHIGH YOU ARE FUNG AND WRITE BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.
DIVERSITY)

VL CAUSE OF ACTION ee en Tn SER WracH YOU

HLA USS BED wy ron

SA CGE Nis, RASS DISA or

DEMAND $

CHECK:YES only ¥ demanded In complaint

ores Sno

"Vil, REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT D UNDER F.A.C.R 23 JURY DEMAND;
VII. This case Bi is not arefiling of a previously dismissed action.
(0) is arefiling of-case number, , previously dismissed by Judge iy
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF . xX
eth << YO


mo rc.

A. Reinstatement of Plaintiff to his former position or another available position for
which Plaintiff is qualified and all increases in salary and benefits he would have
received but for Defendant’s unlawful conduct;

B. An award of back-pay with interest from the date Defendant terminated Plaintiff
from the act of payroll to the date of judgment;

An award of front-pay to compensate Plaintiff for future lost wages and benefits;
An award of compensatory damages for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,
mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary losses;

E. An award of exemplary damages to punish Defendant for engaging in the
discriminatory practice with malice or reckless indifference to the legally
productive rights of Plaintiff

F. An award of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs in prosecuting this action; and

G. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just.

Gary W. Reese,

By:

Ronald J. Broida

Jeffrey A. Tullis

Broida and Tullis, Ltd.
Attorneys at Law

Attorneys for Plaintiff

1250 E. Diehl Road, Suite 108
Naperville, Illinois 60563
(0) 245-1515

(630) 245-1565 FAX



cr
The Particulars Are:

My date of birth is May 16, 1947, fam currently 56 years of age. My most recent position with
GE was that of SPB Global Account Manager. I am submitting this charge of discrimination as
acovered claim due to the fact that I believe that my termination is employment discrimination
based on age in violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967. GE stated
that my termination was not performance related but due to “realignment and consolidation of
work.” The so-called elimination of my position is not consistent with actions taken by
management.

Elimination of position:

1) On August 23, 2002, Sheri Sakagawa presented to GE Industrial Systems, business
units her summer project of Telecom Industry Overview. The focus was years
2002 thru 2004 projected growth plan, trends and capital spending.

2) October 31, 2002, Dave Griffith, General Manager of Global Accounts,
redeployed Global Account Managers to target markets in lieu of regional market
focus. I was assigned to the Telecom Industry with $271 Billion in revenues. The
goal was to position GE with the winners in this industry for the turn around in
2004/2005 and to understand their market drivers, infrastructure, supply chain and
technology.

3) April 29, 2003, I received the layoff notice, six months after redeployment.

4) Effective August 1, 2003, I was removed from the GE payroll.

Consolidation of Work:
1) In recent months two new Global Account Managers were signed, David King and
David Orsini.
2) In February 2003 Global Account Manager Lisa Pieszak was reassigned to
Regional Account responsibilities.
3) In March/April 2003 Global Account Managers Dennis Cochran and Bob Hull
were given additional accounts not in their target market.

Effectively July 1, 2003, new sales organizations were announced. Several senior professional
positions were created. A 26 year old was promoted to senior professional as Industrial District
Manager in Chicago. Asa senior professional, at the age of 56 (that is, over 40 years old) with 36
years with GE, I was not considered. For 36 years I have taken the assignments GE asked of me,
exceeding sales budgets year after year, taking sales team leadership, finding new ways to develop
corporate relationships and winning numerous sales awards.

Atthe time I was discharged, I was earning $95,000.00 a year and reasonably anticipate that it will
take me two years to become employed in a situation that I was in at the time I was fired. Asa
result of my termination, I have lost the use of a car, lost a considerable amount of potential
pension benefits (for example, if I were to work until I was 65 years of age, my pension benefits
would be nearly $2,000.00 more per month), lost, at current salary, matching contributions from
my employer to the savings plan of over $3,300.00 per year, lost salary increases, bonuses and
stock options, I have suffered pain and emotional distress (as a long-term employee I was
summarily discarded from the workforce and, asa punitive measure, the employer delayed paying
my pension benefits by four months during which time there was no income into the family).


lan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

In the Matter of
Gary W. Reese,
Plaintiff,
vs.
General Electric Company,
a New York corporation

i
POCKETED
MAY 27 2004

046.363 '7

Defendant.
APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY(S) FOR:

Gary W. Reese

JUDGE MANNING _

_z= { WW
a | Lei Ie.

SIGNATURE

mine Ronald JVproida NAME Jef y A.’ Tullis
oo rin 7 ;
Broida and Tullis, Ltd. Broida and Tullis, Ltd.
STREET ADDRESS STREET ADDRESS .
1250 E. Diehl Road, Suite 108 1250 E. Diehl Road, Suite 108
CIVSTATERIP CITVISTATEZIP

Naperville, IL 60563

Naperville, IL 60563

TELEPHONE NUMBER

(630) 245-1515

FAX NUMBER

(630) 245-1565

TELEPHONE NUMBER

(630) 245-1515

FAX NUMBER.

(630) 245-1565

E-MAIL ADDRESS

E-MAIL ADDRESS

broidatullis@aol.com broidatullis@aol.com
TDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE) IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
303933
MEMBER OF TRIAL DAR? vs () x (MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? vs Q wo
TRIAL ATTORNEY? vs Qo w TRIAL ATTORNEY? vs [ wn
DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL? vs (lo oo»

©

@)

‘SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE
TAME TAME

FIRM FIRM

STREET ADDRESS ‘STREET ADDRESS:

CITY/STATEZIP CITY/STATEZIP

"TELEPHONE NUMBER FAR NOMDER TELEPHONE NUMBER

E-MAIL ADDRESS E-MAIL ADDRESS

IDENTIFICATION NUMDER (SEE ITEM 4 ONREVERSED IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ONREVERSE)

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? vs Qo nw MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? vs QQ ~w

TRIAL ATTORNEY? vs [] wo [Ty TRIAL ATTORNEY? vs Qo ~w
DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL? vs [J wo DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL? vs [) wo )



fn cTM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 3B
EASTERN DIVISION fp

DOCKETED ‘
MAY 2 7 2004

GARY W. REESE,
Plaintiff,

)
)
vs. 5 - :
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, 04C Cc 3 63 7 °
”

a New York corporation, JUDGE MANNING

Defendant. )
COMPLAINT —_AGISTRATE JUDGE ASHMAN

Gary W. Reese, by his attorneys, Ronald J. Broida and Jeffrey A. Tullis, for his Complaint
against General Electric Company, a New York corporation, states:

JURISDICTION/VENUE

1. Gary W. Reese (“Plaintiff”), is a 56 year old male residing in Naperville, DuPage
County, Illinois.

2. General Electric Company (“Defendant”), is a New York corporation, which at
all relevant times maintained and operated a place of business in Oak Brook, DuPage County,
Illinois.

3. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court by 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 29 U.S.C, 621 et
seq. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because Defendant is a resident of the Northern
District of Illinois and all acts complained of occurred in this District.

4. On March 18, 2004, Plaintiff timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), a true and accurate copy of which is
attached hereto, as marked as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference.

5. On March 30, 2004, the EEOC mailed to Plaintiff notification of his right to sue.

A true and accurate copy of the Notice of Right to Sue is attached hereto, is marked as Exhibit

B and is incorporated herein by reference. N



JAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSIO..

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE

(Issued on request}

To: Gary W. Reese From:
1395 Deep Run Road Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Naperville, IL 60540 500 West Madison
Suite 2800
Certified: 7001 0360 0000 0463 4833 CP Atty: Chicago, Illinois 60661
[J on vehayf ofa person aggrieved whose identity is CONFIDENTIAL

(29 C.F.R. 1601.7(a))

Charge Number EEOC Representative Telephone Number

210-2004-03649 Cheryl Mabrry-Thomas, Enforcement Supervisor {312} 353-8178

( See the additional information attached to this form }
TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED: This is your NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE. It is issued at your request. If you intend to sue the respondent(s)

named in your charge, YOU MUST DO SO WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS OF YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE: OTHERWISE YOUR
RIGHT TO SUE IS LOST.

[_] More than 180 days have expired since the filing of this charge.

Less than 180 days have expired since the filing of this charge, but I have determined that the Commission will be unable to complete
its process within 180 days from the filing of the charge.

With the issuance of this NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE, the Commission is terminating its process with respect to this charge.

It has been determined that the Commission will continue to investigate your charge.

[41 pea: While Title Vil and the ADA require EEOC to issue this notice of right to sue before you can bring a lawsuit, you may sue
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) any time 60 days after your charge was filed until] 90 days after you
received notice that EEOC has completed action on your charge.

[1 Because EEOC is closing your case, your lawsuit under the ADEA must be brought within 90 days of your receipt of this
notice. Otherwise, your right to sue is lost.

C21} xx0C is continuing its investigation. You will be notified when we have completed action and, if appropriate, our notice
will include notice of right to sue under the ADEA.

[71 Epa: while Title VII and the ADA require EBOC to issue this Notice of Right to Sue before you can bring a lawsuit, you already
have the right to sue under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) (You ate not required to complain to any enforcement agency before bringing
an EPA suit in court). EPA suits must be brought within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment.

On Behalf of the Commission

5, [s of 40 oy

(Date)

ohn P. Rowe, District Director

Enclosures

Information Sheet
Copy of Charge

cc: Respondent(s) General Electric Co.

BEOC Form 161-B (Test 10/94)

EXHIBIT B



NATURE OF ACTION

6. This action is brought for compensation and punitive damages and other relief
arising from Defendant’s unlawful discrimination of Plaintiff in violation of the Age
Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. and willful or
reckless indifference to Plaintiff's federally protected statutory rights.

VIOLATION OF THE ADEA

7. Plaintiff's date of birth is May 16, 1947 and he is 56 years of age.

8. In or around May 30, 1967, Plaintiff commenced employment with Defendant.
Plaintiff worked as a Global Account Manager, earning an annual salary of $95,000.00 and at all
times performed his job duties above and beyond the expectations of Defendant.

9. Pursuant to a plan developed by Defendant, Plaintiff was re-assigned to the
Telecom Industry.

10. Thereafter, on April 29, 2003, six months after Plaintiff's re-assignment, Plaintiff
received a lay-off notice from Defendant. _—

11. Effective August 1, 2003, Plaintiff was terminated.

12. Defendant terminated Plaintiff claiming such termination was not performance
related but due to realignment and consolidation of work.

13.  Defendant’s alleged reason for terminating Plaintiff is pretextual because the
termination of Plaintiff is not consistent with actions taken by Defendant and additionally,
Plaintiff was passed over by Defendant so that Defendant could place a 26 year old, less qualified
candidate to a position that Plaintiff requested and was qualified for.

14. In recent months, two new Global Account Managers were given assignments that
were previously responsibilities of Plaintiff.

15. Inoraround February, 2003, Global Account Manager Lisa Preszak was reassigned
to regional account responsibilities previously handled by Plaintiff.

2



oTM co

16, Inor around March/April, 2003, Global Account Managers Dennis Cochran and
Bob Hull were given additional accounts not in their target market.

17. Effective July, 2003, Defendant also announced new sales organizations.

18. In announcing new sales organizations, Defendant created several senior
professional positions.

19. Though qualified and having over 36 years of experience with Defendant, Plaintiff
was not considered for any of these additional positions or assignments.

20. Defendant instead promoted a 26 year old, less qualified candidate to a senior
professional position as Industrial District Manager in Chicago.

21. At all times during his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff performed the
essential functions of his job in a satisfactory manner.

22. ‘Throughout the duration of Plaintiff's 36 years with Defendant, Plaintiff had taken
the assignments Defendant had asked of Plaintiff, exceeded sales budgets, taken sales team
leadership, found new ways to develop corporate relationships and won numerous sales awards.

23. Defendant, through the aforementioned actions, has intentionally violated
Plaintiff's rights under the ADEA, and in doing so, has acted with malice and reckless indifference
to Plaintiff's federally protected rights.

24. Asaresult of Defendant’s misconduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
damages, including lost wages, lost employment benefits, his 401 (k) benefits, health insurance and
bonuses, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life
and other non-pecuniary losses. Plaintiff has also incurred a reasonable attorneys’ fees and court
costs in prosecuting this action.

Wherefore, Gary W. Reese, prays for entry of judgment in his favor and against General

Electric Company, a New York corporation, and for the following relief: