A federal court last week dismissed the case of a woman who alleged earlier this year that a Mitchell business had discriminated against her based on her age.
Mary Bollock and Boyds' Gunstock Industries Inc. filed a joint motion to dismiss on Dec. 3, and Judge Lawrence L. Piersol dismissed the case on Dec. 11.
The reason for dismissal is not included in court documents, though a document filed in May indicated the parties were considering mediation. Bollock's attorney, Stephanie Pochop, declined to comment on the case, and Lisa Marso, who represented Boyds' Gunstock, did not respond Monday to a call from The Daily Republic.
Bollock, at the age of 59, filed her complaint in March, requesting more than $75,000 in damages for discrimination she said occurred while she was an employee at Boyds', from 2015 through January 2018.
During that time, Bollock alleged, while she worked as a marketing manager, a younger supervisor repeatedly harassed her by making comments about her age and advertised her job as being available. The complaint also argued Bollock was demoted, with some of her duties being turned over to a younger employee, based on her age, and that she was the only similarly-situated employee whose Christmas bonus was decreased from $3,000 one year to $600 the next.
ADVERTISEMENT
Bollock reportedly complained about her treatment to coworkers, the company's human resources department and Randy Boyd, the company's founder and president. The alleged hostile work environment eventually led Bollock to submit a letter of resignation, according to her complaint.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued Bollock a right to sue letter in December 2018.
An answer to Bollock's complaint, filed by Boyds' in April, denied wrongdoing on the part of the company but conceded to some of the events during Bollock's employment that were included in her complaint, including that a position including some of Bollock's job duties was advertised in 2017, that Bollock was demoted and that a younger employee was given some of her prior responsibilities.
Boyds' answer argued that Bollock's claims were barred for a number of reasons, including that the company's actions were taken for nondiscriminatory reasons and that Bollock resigned voluntarily.
Prior to the dismissal, the case was scheduled to go to trial in the fall of 2020. As part of the judgment of dismissal, both sides will be responsible for their own legal costs.
