UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL C. OLEKSA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs Case No. 

 Hon. 

GUARDIAN ALARM COMPANY 

OF MICHIGAN, dba T. M. Enterprise 

Services, Inc. a Guardian Alarm Company, 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/ 

BURGESS & SHARP, PLLC 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

By: Rex A. Burgess, P42779 

 Heidi T. Sharp, P69641 

15985 Canal Road 

Clinton Township, MI 48038 

586-226-2627 

___________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

 Plaintiff, Michael C. Oleksa, by and through his attorneys, Burgess & Sharp, PLLC, 

for his complaint against the Defendant states as follows: 

 1. At all times relevant hereto Plaintiff Michael C. Oleksa was an employee of 

Guardian Alarm Company of Michigan d/b/a T. M. Enterprise Services, Inc., a Guardian 

Alarm Company. 

 2. T. M. Enterprise Services, Inc., a Guardian Alarm Company, has offices in 

Novi, Michigan, and does business throughout southeastern Michigan. 

2:09-cv-10764-DPH-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/27/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 1
 3. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 USC 

2601 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 USC 621 et seq. and has 

pendant jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 USC 1367(a). 

General Allegations

 4. Plaintiff, Michael C. Oleksa, worked for Guardian Alarm from January, 1969 

through February of 1986 and again from March, 1993 through May of 2007, for a total of 

31 years. 

 5. Plaintiff was terminated on May 21, 2007, for alleged excess absenteeism. 

 6. At the time of his termination, Plaintiff was a Fire Alarm System Designer 

earning a salary of $48,000 plus bonuses and other benefits. 

Count I

Violation of Family Medical Leave Act

 7. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs. 

 8. At all times relevant hereto Plaintiff Michael C. Oleksa was an employee of 

Guardian Alarm Company of Michigan d/b/a T. M. Enterprise Services, Inc., a Guardian 

Alarm Company, and was eligible for family medical leave for a qualifying event. 

 9. Defendant as an employer pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act, has 

more than 50 employees. 

 10. Plaintiff had been employed for more than one year and had worked more 

than 1,250 hours in the year preceding the onset of the leave in question. 

 11. Plaintiff's wife had an on-going serious medical condition during the time 

period relative to this cause of action and the Defendant had a duty to offer Plaintiff Family 

Medical Leave to care for his wife's serious medical condition. 

2

2:09-cv-10764-DPH-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/27/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 2
 12. The Defendant failed to notify the Plaintiff of his qualification for Family 

Medical Leave and his right to intermittent leave. 

 13. The Defendant retaliated against the Plaintiff for taking time off that he was 

eligible for under the Family Medical Leave Act and terminated him without cause when he 

was not at work for events that qualified for Family Medical Leave. 

 14. Defendant's actions were intentional violations of the Family Medical Leave 

Act. 

 15. As a direct result of the Defendant's violation of Family Medical Leave Act, 

Plaintiff suffered lost wages, lost benefits, loss of future wages, liquidated damages, and loss 

of employment opportunities. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant whatever legal or 

equitable relief it finds necessary to compensate Plaintiff for his lost wages, lost benefits, 

loss of future wages, liquidated damages, loss of employment and advanced opportunities 

resulting from Defendant's multiple violations of the Family Medical Leave Act, attorney 

fees and costs. 

Count II

Violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,

29 USC 621 et seq. and the Elliott Larson Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2201 et seq.

 16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs. 

 17. Plaintiff was 60 years old at the time of his termination. 

 18. His age was a factor in the decision to terminate him. 

 19. Other similarly situated employees who were younger than the Plaintiff and 

had similar records regarding absenteeism were not disciplined or terminated. 

3

2:09-cv-10764-DPH-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/27/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 3
 20. The reasons given for Plaintiff's termination by the employer were inaccurate, 

untrue, or otherwise in violation of the Plaintiff's statutory rights and were manufactured as a 

pretext to cover up the employer's intent to discriminate against the Plaintiff because of his 

age. 

 21. As a direct result of the employer's illegal discrimination because of Plaintiff's 

age, Plaintiff suffered lost wages, lost benefits, loss of future wages, liquidated damages, and 

loss of employment opportunities. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant whatever legal or 

equitable relief it finds necessary to compensate Plaintiff for his lost wages, lost benefits, 

loss of future wages, liquidated damages, loss of employment and advanced opportunities 

resulting from Defendant's multiple violations of the Family Medical Leave Act, attorney 

fees and costs. 

 s/Rex A. Burgess

 Burgess & Sharp, PLLC 

 15985 Canal Road 

 Clinton Township, MI 48038 

 586-226-2627 

 rex@burgess-sharp.com 

Date: February 27, 2009 P42779 

JURY DEMAND 

 Plaintiff requests a Jury trial in the above-captioned case. 

s/ Rex A. Burgess

 Burgess & Sharp, PLLC 

 15985 Canal Road 

 Clinton Township, MI 48038 

 (586) 226-2627 

 e-mail: rex@burgess-sharp.com 

 P42779 

4

2:09-cv-10764-DPH-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/27/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 4