Safelite Denies Allegations Made by Former Indiana Technician; Requests Dismissal
October 14, 2011

Safelite has denied the allegations of one of its former technicians in Indiana who claims his employment was wrongfully terminated due to his sex after an incident involving a damaged dashboard and a warranty issue. The company has requested a dismissal of the case, which is under review in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.

The suit in question was filed by Michael Hill of Fort Wayne, Ind., in August.

Safelite admits that Hill worked for the company from April 2008 through July 2009 as a technician, but denies that Hill's supervisor "treated [him] unfairly in that he discriminated against him by assigning [him] jobs located out of town and reassigning other in-town jobs to other installers."

Hill's most specific allegation includes an incident in which he says he cut a customer's dashboard on July 7, 2007, and covered the customer's VIN plate with urethane. Safelite admits that this occurred in late June or early July 2009, but denies Hill's further allegation that he advised a customer service representative, referred to as Stacey Milner, that the windshield would have to be re-installed.

Hill says he was let go for not providing a warranty note to the customer and for not going back to fix the problem.

Safelite officials agree that Hill's employment was terminated on or about July 10, 2009, but say they are "without sufficient identifying information to either admit or deny the remaining allegations" regarding the reasoning for his termination. The company further affirms Hill's allegation that Milner has not been terminated, but denies Hill was let go due to his sex.

While Hill had alleged that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), with whom he originally filed a complaint, had issued him a "right to sue," Safelite officials deny that this has occurred.

In addition to its denial of Hill's allegations, Safelite offers several affirmative defenses in its response, including a claim that Hill "has failed to name all parties necessary and/or the appropriate party," and that his termination of employment "was not discriminatory, but was a result of legitimate, non-discriminatory reason and basis."

The company further alleges that Hill has filed for bankruptcy, but did not disclose this in his complaint, and therefore "is judicially estopped from pursuing the instant claims."

Need more info and analysis about the issues?
Subscribe to AGRR Magazine.