Lory Fabian now suing Rams for Age Discrimination too.

[Stranger]

Some excerpts...

21. Had Plaintiff remained with the Rams until she reached the age of 55, she would have qualified for health insurance benefits until the age of 65 under NFL Resolution JC-1. As Plaintiff’s continued employment would have also qualified for increased pension benefits, it is Plaintiff’s belief that her age was the determining factor in the Rams first stripping her of her duties, subsequently transferring her to a less vital position, and ultimately in the Rams’ decision to fire her.

22. Over the last two years, the Rams and Plaintiff’s supervisor, Rams’ Executive Vice President of Football Operations, Kevin Demoff and former Head Coach Steve Spagnuolo systematically fired several other employees over the age of forty (40).

23. Individuals in Rams’ management previously commented that they would “like to get rid of all the middle aged women” working for the organization and intimidated, belittled and criticized Plaintiff and others over the age of forty (40) in attempt to replace older employees with younger employees.

27. Kevin Demoff also clearly stated to Plaintiff in a meeting that the Rams wanted “young, inexpensive grinders” and that new positions could be created for older, experienced workers like Plaintiff.

28. Kevin Demoff stated to Plaintiff that “no one liked her” and she was too old for her job”.

29. The Rams’ management intentionally excluded Plaintiff from many Rams meetings within Plaintiff’s own department, excluded her from Rams events and activities over the last few years of her employment as part of their systematic plan to ice her out and attempt to force her to quit her job with the Rams.

30. Ms. Fabian reported the offensive age related comments and discriminatory actions to various members of the Rams management, including John Shaw but nothing was done to address the offensive age related comments and discriminatory actions continued.

31. Ms. Fabian was unable to report the discriminatory age related comments and discriminatory actions to the Rams Human Resources Department because the Rams did not have a Human Resources Department to address such activity.

32. After Ms. Fabian reported the discriminatory age related comments and discriminatory actions to John Shaw, she was presented with the first contract of her 30 years of employment in the NFL. The contract for employment had a term of 18 months, which would terminate on or about her 55th birthday. The contract was orchestrated by John Shaw in an effort to “protect her” job from termination at least until she reached the age of 55 when she would become eligible for certain age related benefits such as the JC-1 resolution that would guarantee her health insurance through the Rams until she reached the age of 65.

33. Following the issuance of the contract referenced above to plaintiff, Demoff switched plaintiff from her job in Public Relations/Media to a newly created position of Alumni Coordinator. The Alumni Coordinator was part of a newly created department within itself and plaintiff was the only employee in said department. Plaintiff was given no budget with which to run said department and was set up to fail in her new position as a false way to make her subsequent termination look legitimate.

34. The above events show a pattern and practice of age discrimination. Employees over the age of forty (40) were been fired, laid off, involuntarily forced to retire or were terminated by the Rams, and replaced with younger employees to “change the culture”.

if any of this is remotely accurate then we have, or have had, children running the store at Rams Park. People here can continue to dismiss the accusations, deride the accusers, but I can't see any reason to support an executive staff that operates in this manner (again, if the accusations are even remotely accurate).

I've been a fan for over 40 years, but that doesn't mean I should accept such blatent disregard and disrespect, which ultimately derides the organization that I've invested in for so long. If this and the Hewitt case are successful, then ownership should remove the remaining execs who are responsible for this childish behavior and install more responsible exec staff.

 

[Stranger]

more....

38. During the course of plaintiff's employment Defendant’s representatives, acting within the scope and course of employment, engaged in a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination and sexual harassment against plaintiff, based on her sex, in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-2(a) and § 2000e-3(a).

39. During her employment, Ms. Fabian was subjected to unwelcome, uninvited, offensive and intimidating comments and jokes of a sexual nature by Bob Reif, Rams Executive Vice President/Marketing & Sales/Chief Marketing Officer.

40. Reif touched Ms. Fabian in manner that was unwelcome and intimidating.

41. Reif placed both his hands on Ms. Fabian’s shoulders massaged her and told her she needed to “loosen up.”

42. Reif pressed the front of his body up against Ms. Fabian’s backside, put his arms around her and put his hands around her waist.

43. During Ms. Fabian’s employment and while she was performing responsibilities associated with her employment, Reif intentionally touched Plaintiff’s and other female employees shoulders, back and waist in an offensive and intimidating manner.

44. Defendant Reif’s conduct showed a complete indifference to, and a conscious disregard for the health and safety of Plaintiff, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages in this matter.

45. Defendant Rams was aware that Reif intentionally touched Ms. Fabian and other female employees in ways that were offensive, threatening, degrading and intimidating manner.

46. Defendant Rams was aware that Reif made sexually suggestive comments and jokes to and around Ms. Fabian in ways that were threatening, offensive, and degrading to her.

47. Ms. Fabian reported the touching, comments and jokes of Reif to the Rams management.

48. Ms. Fabian would have reported the touching and comments of Reif to the Rams’ Human Resources Department but they did not have one.

49. Reif also continued to make sexually suggestive comments after the complaint.

 

[-X-]

[hil]if any of this is remotely accurate[/hil] then we have, or have had, children running the store at Rams Park. People here can continue to dismiss the accusations, deride the accusers, but I can't see any reason to support an executive staff that operates in this manner (again, if the accusations are even remotely accurate).

I've been a fan for over 40 years, but that doesn't mean I should accept such blatent disregard and disrespect, which ultimately derides the organization that I've invested in for so long. [hil]If this and the Hewitt case are successful[/hil], then ownership should remove the remaining execs who are responsible for this childish behavior and install more responsible exec staff.

Hey, guess what. Rampage the mascot tried to fondle me.

Now all I need is a lawyer and my word.

Hyperbole, sure. But until ANY of this is substantiated, I'm going to treat it for what it is. Hearsay and rumor.

 

[Stranger]

[hil]if any of this is remotely accurate[/hil] then we have, or have had, children running the store at Rams Park. People here can continue to dismiss the accusations, deride the accusers, but I can't see any reason to support an executive staff that operates in this manner (again, if the accusations are even remotely accurate).

I've been a fan for over 40 years, but that doesn't mean I should accept such blatent disregard and disrespect, which ultimately derides the organization that I've invested in for so long. [hil]If this and the Hewitt case are successful[/hil], then ownership should remove the remaining execs who are responsible for this childish behavior and install more responsible exec staff.

Hey, guess what. Rampage the mascot tried to fondle me.

Now all I need is a lawyer and my word.

Hyperbole, sure. But until ANY of this is substantiated, I'm going to treat it for what it is. Hearsay and rumor.

Yup, same as with Goodell's Bountygate media blitz.

 

[-X-]

[hil]if any of this is remotely accurate[/hil] then we have, or have had, children running the store at Rams Park. People here can continue to dismiss the accusations, deride the accusers, but I can't see any reason to support an executive staff that operates in this manner (again, if the accusations are even remotely accurate).

I've been a fan for over 40 years, but that doesn't mean I should accept such blatent disregard and disrespect, which ultimately derides the organization that I've invested in for so long. [hil]If this and the Hewitt case are successful[/hil], then ownership should remove the remaining execs who are responsible for this childish behavior and install more responsible exec staff.

Hey, guess what. Rampage the mascot tried to fondle me.

Now all I need is a lawyer and my word.

Hyperbole, sure. But until ANY of this is substantiated, I'm going to treat it for what it is. Hearsay and rumor.

Yup, same as with Goodell's Bountygate media blitz.

Well, there's a bit of difference between the two. Goodell gave up 500 pages of evidence and he's not the guy who's out in front of the media throwing gas on the fire - that's the players. From Brees likening it to WMD's, to Vilma's mouthpiece decrying the absence of ethics in the NFL as a whole.

I know you want to uncover the dirty side of business, and you're more apt to side with the players and the little guy on matters like these, but I'll ask you not to do it at the expense of the Organization we Champion here. If evidence comes up that puts the Rams in a bad light, then we're free to discuss it and express our disappointment. Until then, we should probably realize the importance of "innocent until proven guilty" and give the Rams the benefit of the doubt. There are, after all, frivolous lawsuits filed every single day in this Country. How do we know that there's any real legal argument for what these former employees are claiming? We don't.

 

[RamFan503]

but I'll ask you not to do it at the expense of the Organization we Champion here. If evidence comes up that puts the Rams in a bad light, then we're free to discuss it and express our disappointment. Until then, we should probably realize the importance of "innocent until proven guilty" and give the Rams the benefit of the doubt. There are, after all, frivolous lawsuits filed every single day in this Country. How do we know that there's any real legal argument for what these former employees are claiming? We don't.

Thank you. That's all I was getting at as well.

 

[Stranger]

I know you want to uncover the dirty side of business, and you're more apt to side with the players and the little guy on matters like these, but I'll ask you not to do it at the expense of the Organization we Champion here. If evidence comes up that puts the Rams in a bad light, then we're free to discuss it and express our disappointment. Until then, we should probably realize the importance of "innocent until proven guilty" and give the Rams the benefit of the doubt. There are, after all, frivolous lawsuits filed every single day in this Country. How do we know that there's any real legal argument for what these former employees are claiming? We don't.

I just want to see this go to trial, as with BountyGate, so we can see the docs and testimony. We can defer this thread until then.

As far as Championing this Organization, I think I've demonstrated my loyalty to the organization without question. And I certainly hate, just like I think most do here, seeing any one individual or few individuals tarnish the organization.