FORT MYERS, Fla. – A Collier County woman alleges the law firm she worked for terminated her employment because of her age and complaints she made about the firm’s discriminatory behavior.
Plaintiff Bettina Burns, 73, filed her lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division.
In her 18-page complaint, Burns alleges Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford PA, also known as Wicker Smith, violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Florida Civil Rights Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
“Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions when defendant singled her out and ultimately terminated her because of her age,” the complaint states. “But for plaintiff’s age, defendant would not have engaged in such conduct.”
Burns contends the firm’s leadership, management and human resources were aware of the discriminatory conduct by supervisor Emily Spehar, who was hired at the firm’s Naples office in August 2023 as a regional legal manager.
“Defendant’s management knowingly permitted or approved of age discrimination, as exhibited by Mgr. Spehar’s ageist questions and statements and the discriminatory campaign she launched against Plaintiff which resulted in her termination,” the lawsuit states.
Burns, who began at the firm as an office services coordinator in February 2020, “nearly always” worked more than 40 hours a week, she claims.
In March 2024, Spehar began asking Burns how much longer she planned to work at Wicker Smith. Burns claims she was “caught off guard and didn’t know how to respond.”
Spehar allegedly pressured Burns, specifically asking when Burns was going to retire.
“From this point forward, Mgr. Spehar routinely singled Plaintiff out and treated her worse than younger peers,” the filing states.
Burns was later told employees had complained about her work product and attitude, saying she completed her work “too slowly.”
Also, in an April 2024 email, Spehar alleged Burns lacked training and skills. She allegedly threatened Burns that she would face a formal improvement plan if she could not execute certain tasks.
In the same email, Spehar admitted there were no training videos that could assist Burns with improving her “deficiencies.”
In May and June 2024, Spehar put Burns on back-to-back 30-day probation periods. The second probation period was set to end on June 28, 2024.
During her first probationary period, Spehar assigned Burns an “impossibly large” workload.
Burns, in turn, reported Spehar’s discriminatory comments about her age to office management. Her treatment then worsened, Burns claims.
About the same time, Burns met with Janet Huber, a training specialist. Huber, via a remote meeting, told Burns she did not need to take notes and that she was “doing well.”
Burns' colleagues reportedly began to notice she was being assigned too much work for one person, the filing states.
On June 12, 2024, Burns discovered the firm had posted her position on Indeed.com, but the listing, Burns notes in her filing, did not include the many duties she was assigned by Spehar.
On June 28, 2024, Spehar called Burns into her office. The firm’s director of human resources was present via speakerphone, and told Burns the firm was terminating her because she did not meet expectations.
“She then stated that Plaintiff was no longer a good fit because her position was changing,” the lawsuit states, adding that the termination document cited Burns’ failure to take notes during her training session with Huber.
“Plaintiff was an able-bodied 72 year old at the time of her termination,” the lawsuit states.
When the firm posted Burns’ now-former job position on July 1, 2024, it was the same description the firm had used in 2020 when it hired her, the complaint notes.
Burns contends she engaged in “protected activity” under the ADEA when she verbally complained to her superiors regarding Spehar’s age-based statements and age-based targeting – such as intentionally not training her and over-assigning her work.
“After plaintiff engaged in protected activity, defendant subjected plaintiff to adverse employment actions, including quickly escalating discipline, and back-to-back probationary periods which ultimately resulted in her termination,” the complaint states.
Burns seeks back and front pay, liquidated damages, compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees. She is represented by Pollard PLLC in Fort Lauderdale.
