Lawsuit claim: Able Body Manufacturing guilty of age, sex discrimination

A Cherokee, Kansas woman filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Able Body Manufacturing, 1000 S. Schifferdecker Avenue, Joplin, Thursday in Jasper County Circuit Court.

In her six-count lawsuit, Jessica Galindo, who was born in 1977 accuses Able Body of age discrimination, sex discrimination and discrimination for exercise of worker's compensation rights.

Also listed as defendants are National Composites, LLC, Troy, Michigan and Galindo's boss Mark Nichols.

According to the petition, Galindo, who worked for Able Body for 22 years and was serving as technical director, began having problems in February 2024 when National Composites, Able Body's parent company hired Mark Nichols as vice president of operations.

During his first month in charge, Nichols fired an HR generalist, a woman who was in her 50s and announced he planned to make significant staff cuts, according to the petition, saying that CEO Adam Fenton had asked him to do to "increase the company's profit."

From the petition:

Mr. Nichols then demanded that Ms. Galindo and Daniel Harris (QA Manager) pick two employees from each of their teams to fire. Having worked at Able for 20+ years, Ms. Galindo treated this assignment with respect and sensitivity, knowing that she would essentially be firing two of her colleagues. But in March 2024—just days after Mr. Nichols assigned Ms. Galindo to choose two of her colleagues to fire—Mr. Nichols called Ms. Galindo into his office with what he claimed was “a unique opportunity to hire an experienced engineer in the composites industry.” 

Mr. Nichols handed Ms. Galindo the resume of Alan Vorse, who was the son of National Composite’s Chief Technology Officer, Dennis Vorse. Mr. Nichols then handed his computer to Ms. Galindo and told her that he had written up a job description specifically for Mr. Vorse. He asked her to review it and to speak with Mr. Vorse about the position. 

Mr. Nichols explained that he had fired Ms. Price, who was in her 50s, specifically in order to free up money to hire the much-younger Mr. Vorse. Ms. Galindo asked Mr. Nichols to whom Mr. Vorse would be reporting. Mr. Nichols said he would report to Ms. Galindo and work in the engineering team. 

Before conducting any interviews or screening, Mr. Nichols had already decided to hire Mr. Vorse. When Mr. Nichols presented Mr. Vorse’s resume to Ms. Galindo, he pressured her to approve of Mr. Vorse’s hiring and stressed that CEO Fenton had already approved the hiring. 

Ms. Galindo agreed to look over the resume and to meet with Mr. Vorse to make sure he would be a fit for her team. Ms. Galindo was surprised and confused by this conversation because it happened just after Mr. Nichols and Able announced staff cuts and assigned her to fire two of her colleagues. But when Ms. Galindo reviewed Mr. Vorse’s resume, she found several glaring red flags. First, Mr. Vorse was only 27 years old, yet he claimed to have 20 years of experience. 

Second, Ms. Galindo also discovered that Mr. Vorse did not have any sort of engineering degree as he claimed on his resume. When she contacted the schools listed on Mr. Vorse’s resume, Ms. Galindo found that Mr. Vorse did not even hold a bachelor's degree.

After discovering these red flags, Ms. Galindo did not reach out to Karrie Chester (HR Generalist), since Ms. Chester directly reported to Mr. Nichols. Instead, she contacted Chief Finance Officer Chad Darnell, and explained to him that Mr. Nichols had pressured her to hire Mr. Vorse, who was not qualified for the role and had lied about his credentials on his resume. 

Mr. Darnell agreed that Mr. Nichols had acted inappropriately and acknowledged Mr. Vorse’s red flags. Mr. Darnell warned Ms. Galindo not to tell to anyone else that she was the one who discovered the false information on Mr. Vorse’s resume. He said if it came to it, he would take responsibility for completing the background check. 

Mr. Darnell also asked Ms. Galindo to keep him informed about her next conversation with Mr. Nichols. He promised he would “keep the heat off of [her]” and prevent Alan Vorse’s hiring. 

After Ms. Galindo interviewed Mr. Vorse, Mr. Nichols asked for Ms. Galindo’s thoughts about hiring him. Ms. Galindo said that Mr. Vorse was unqualified for the position Mr. Nichols had created for him, and that Mr. Vorse lacked the necessary experience for such a high-level role. Trying to find a compromise, Ms. Galindo said that perhaps Mr. Vorse could be trained for a different, lower role. 

 Ms. Galindo told Mr. Nichols that she had everyone on her team meet with Mr. Vorse as well, and suggested that Mr. Nichols speak with some of them. Mr. Nichols’s body language and tone showed that he was disappointed in Ms. Galindo. He abruptly ended the conversation and left Ms. Galindo’s office without saying more. Mr. Nichols said he would get back to Ms. Galindo later on his final hiring decision, but he never did. Nor did he ask any of Ms. Galindo’s team members for their opinions on Mr. Vorse.Ultimately, Able did not hire Mr. Vorse. Mr. Nichols labeled Ms. Galindo ‘negative’; 

About two weeks later, on March 22, 2024, Ms. Galindo was meeting with Mr. Harris, Operations Manager Eric Rygaard, and Plant Manager Larry McReynolds. Mr. Nichols interrupted the meeting and asked Mr. Harris and Ms. Galindo if they had chosen which of their colleagues to fire. 

Mr. Harris responded that he was having a difficult time making the decision. Sensing Mr. Harris’s discomfort, Ms. Galindo proposed alternative strategies to increase Able’s profitability without firing hardworking employees. 

Ms. Galindo suggested that instead of firing people, they should think of ways to optimize their business and better utilize their current employees. Mr. Nichols repeatedly interrupted Ms. Galindo and yelled: “My opinion is the only only one that matters!” 

On March 25, 2024 at 6:00 AM, Ms. Galindo texted CEO Fenton to ask if he was available to talk. During their call, Ms. Galindo expressed her concerns about the impending terminations. CEO Fenton clarified that he had never explicitly instructed Mr. Nichols to reduce staff. Instead, CEO Fenton said he had challenged Mr. Nichols to make the company profitable and ensure Able exceeded its $2 million goal. CEO Fenton said that he did not want to lose talented employees. He suggested that roles could be adjusted if necessary, but he said he had not intended that anyone in Engineering or Quality be fired. 

Ms. Galindo told CEO Fenton that Mr. Nichols wasn’t the right man to lead them. Mr. Fenton said he was okay with Mr. Nichols “ruffling feathers” as long as the company prospered. Ms. Galindo said: “It’s not ruffling of feathers or changes that are the issue. It is how [Mr. Nichols] speaks to people. He isn't building a team to work together. He is focused on tearing us down." 

Mr. Fenton concluded the call by saying that he was available anytime to discuss the matter and appreciated her concerns. Later that day, Ms. Galindo met with Mr. Nichols to discuss the two employees she had identified for termination, as directed. Mr. Nichols started the meeting by expressing his displeasure over their previous meeting on March 22, 2024. Mr. Nichols began scolding Ms. Galindo like a child. He accused her of not taking his assignment seriously and claimed that she had failed to complete the task out of insubordination. 

Ms. Galindo replied that she had completed the assignment and had taken it very seriously. She explained that she had been reflecting on the matter ever since Mr. Nichols had first mentioned cutting team members weeks earlier. She said that she thought their discussion on March 22, 2024 was an invitation to discuss other options beyond cutting staff. 53. Mr. Nichols again treated Ms. Galindo like a child, saying: “I am extremely disappointed in you.”

Ms. Galindo said that she considered laying people off to be a serious matter worthy of in-depth consideration and that she had decided whom to fire at Mr. Nichols's direction. She reiterated that she had just wanted to suggest alternatives to firing her colleagues, and she apologized for disappointing Mr. Nichols. 

Mr. Nichols told Ms. Galindo that he didn’t want an apology. Mr. Nichols then accused Ms. Galindo of being “the most negative person in the organization.” In Ms. Galindo’s 25 years of experience, nobody else had ever told her she was “negative.” She asked Mr. Nichols if he could give examples of her supposed negativity, particularly since their interactions had been limited. 

The lawsuit claims Nichols' characterization of Galindo as being negative "reflected common sexist biases against women in the workplace. These stereotypes label assertive women as nagging or impossible to please and assertive men as effective and productive."Men in the company who had questioned Nichols' decisions were not labeled as "negative."

From March to May of 2024, several male colleagues told Galindo Nichols was treating her differently from them because she was a woman.

The petition also notes sexist remarks allegedly made by Nichols to Galindo.

On April 16, 2024, during a staff meeting, Mr. Rygaard was talking about the importance of being aware of one’s surroundings when working in a manufacturing facility. Seeing that Ms. Galindo had her hand in bandages, Mr. Rygard asked Ms. Galindo to share how she had injured her hand. 

Ms. Galindo explained that earlier that week, one of her two dogs had bitten her after she got in between her dogs while they were fighting. Prior to this staff meeting, Ms. Galindo had told Mr. Rygaard and Mr. Nichols that she would be late for work to take her dogs to the veterinarian. 

Mr. Nichols arrived late to the meeting, as he often did, missing the first part of the discussion. After Ms. Galindo explained that she had been bitten by her dog, Mr. Nichols said: “Oh, you’re the one that needed to go to the vet!”He continued to tease Ms. Galindo for going to the vet, implying she was a dog, and humiliated her in front of her co-workers. This teasing echoed sexist tropes that compare women to animals, such as calling a woman a “bitch.” 

Two days later, Mr. Nichols walked down the hall toward Ms. Galindo’s office just as she was leaving. As they passed each other in the hallway, Mr. Nichols referred to Ms. Galindo as “Dog Bite,” saying, “How’s it going, Dog Bite?” 

Ms. Galindo responded: “That’s not me, but my hand is doing better,” and continued down the hall. 

The lawsuit also alleges violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act and false imprisonment stemming from a meeting in Nichols' office in which Galindo was uncomfortable with the way the conversation was going and attempted to leave. At that point, she claims, Nichols deliberately moved to block the doorway to keep her from leaving.

The problems with Nichols continued, the petition said, until eventually she was fired. 

The petition notes that Nichols also fired three other women, one in her 60s, one in her 50s and another in her 40s.

 Galindo is asking for damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and expenses and is asking for a jury trial.

She is represented by Keenan and Bhatia, LLC, a Kansas City firm.