As a former employee of Pitt’s Office of Admissions and Financial Aid will be submitted the civil complaint against the University for alleged discrimination against him on the basis of their age.
By Michael Andrews, is a system analyst in the Department’s Financial Aid Systems and, since 2008, the claim has to be submitted by Jan. 27, at the Allegheny County Court of Common pleas. Andews claimed that the University’s actions are in violation of the federal Age Discrimination Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, as amended. At the time of termination, mr. Andrews, the oldest employee in his division at the age of 61 years.
He asked the court to award him reinstatement to his former position with back pay from April 25, 2018. As an alternative, he requested an award of its being projected into the past, present and future revenues, including contributions to his 401(k) as of April 25, 2018 to July 20, 2026, the projected date of retirement. He also asked the court to award him damages and attorney’s fees.
A university spokesman Kevin Zwick declined to comment on the matter.
According to the complaint, Andrew is the lead analyst for the section. From 2008 to 2017, the complaint said, mr. Andrews received a “Successful” job performance evaluations from three different supervisors.
From 2015 to 2017, Admir Music, and served as the lead analyst and was responsible for the delivery of performance reviews. Despite not having worked directly with mr. Andrews, the complaint alleged, Randy McCready, executive director of financial aid, has changed Andrew’s 2017 and the evaluation of the performance of “Successful” to “needs Improvement.”
In a match between Andrews ‘and: ‘Back’, the complaint said, McCready has stated that he was going to come back to in the evaluation of the “Successful” status. However, the complaint, told the review: ‘Back’ later, with Andrews’ signature restore “Successful” at several points in the review.
Andrews then met up with Jane and the People of the Office of Human Resources, and requested the People to contact are: ‘Back’, change the review back to “Success.” According to the complaint, mr. Andrews believed that he was a victim of discrimination on the grounds of age, as a result of: ‘Back’ actions, and will be paid less than the Honjay, and Kim, a young analyst in the same job classification.
During the first four months of 2017, Andrews’ description of the work was to use the technology, as well as the responsibilities of the financial aid systems analyst, has been significantly altered.
As a result of a new technology system, the complaint said, the passwords used by the ‘analysts’ were constantly being changed. Michelle Jackson, associate director of compliance and operations, seen Andrew at his place of work, in August of 2017. Andrews ‘ colleague, Jeff, Jativa, was recently changed to a password without having to advise mr Andrews, the complaint said, which will not allow him or her to log in to the system from the front side of the body. Andrew tried of Jativa, but was told by Jackson to do so.
After Kim’s November 2017 and resignation, Andrew, and Jativa were the only two of the systems analysts are remaining, with the increase of Andrews’ responsibilities at work, and to require the execution of new tasks that need to be learned, the complaint said. The department will not provide additional support for keeping the department’s two analysts, in spite of the increased workload, according to the complaint.
When mr. Andrews discussed his frustration in a December 2017, in a meeting with Jackson, he asked Jackson to sit down with the analysts, and to learn about their work, and if they were to be responsible for the branch’s annual reviews. Mr. Andrews was called in for a meeting the next day: ‘Back’, as the Chief Enrollment Officer, Mark Harding and Peggy Dunklin at the HR, where he was questioned about the previous day’s meetings with Jackson, and was presented with a letter of insubordination. Andrews was not given the opportunity to rebut the allegations made against him, the complaint said.
Andrews, meeting up with People again, for a month, and said that he believed that his treatment was in response to his initial complaint is against: ‘Back’, and have been accused of discrimination on the grounds of age. People are encouraged Andrew to assume his new responsibilities as well as the introduction of a new approach to dealing with Jackson,” the complaint said.
According to the complaint, mr. Andrews, to be followed People’s advice. He was asked, the complaint said, and this was for lunch, and stayed late. Jackson: ‘Back’, a meeting with Andrew for the next month and told him that his work had improved.
Andrews, later to be programmed as a message-as of April 12, 2018, to be sent to fewer than 100 students to advise them that they would need to ensure that their financial aid application can be processed. After sending the message, Andrew realized that it was not to be included in a document that is missing information will be requested. He has been trying to get in touch with Michael, the complaint said, but she wasn’t in her office. Andrew sent me a second message with the document included, and there are no students were adversely affected, according to the complaint.
Mr Andrews met with Jackson the next day to explain his failure, and his efforts to correct the problem. He has been called out by Jackson in a non-meeting is scheduled for two weeks later: ‘Back’, and the People, where he was handed a letter of termination. According to the complaint, the letter accused mr Andrews of sending thousands of e-mails,” false information to the college students.
Kelley Cain, as a young person, the executive director of the board of inquiry, made a similar mistake to Andrews, according to the complaint, but that does not stop.
At the time of his termination, the complaint said, he was the oldest employee in his department, and has been replaced by a young man with no previous experience in the ‘ 20’s.