WILKES-BARRE, Pa. -
Dec. 2, 2025 -
PRLog --
Ball Pittston, Pennsylvania facility - A U.S. military veteran and senior operations leader has prepared a formal charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Ball Corporation. The filing, pending final signature and review, alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
The draft charge asserts that managers at Ball Corporation's Pittston, Pennsylvania facility — one of the company's largest manufacturing sites — have continued coercive and obstructive practices even after the EEOC process began. Allegations include repeated enforcement of a disputed "Performance Improvement Plan" (PIP), exclusion from operational decision-making, and pressure to comply with an "Action Plan" drafted under duress, despite a pending request for accommodations.
Allegations Against ManagersThe EEOC draft charge and supporting documentation identify
accused managers not named in the charge as responsible for ongoing coercion:
- Taylor Ellison, Plant Manager
- Colleen McNee, HR Manager
The complainant asserts that these managers engaged in a sustained pattern of obstruction and retaliation, including:
- Altered medical packet after legal review: On November 14, 2025, HR delivered a burdensome medical questionnaire in paper form. Thirty‑five minutes after the complainant stated the packet would be subject to legal review, HR emailed a revised digital version with altered language. The new version included vague references to "state and federal laws" and instructions directing the complainant's provider to email HR directly. The complainant contends this alteration was retaliatory, designed to intimidate compliance, and misrepresented legal authority under ADA and HIPAA.
- Directive to silence complaints: HR Manager Colleen McNee allegedly told the complainant that any input should be "put into your action plan," effectively instructing him to stop raising concerns directly with HR. The complainant asserts this directive was an attempt to suppress protected activity, isolate him from the interactive process, and discourage further documentation of violations.
- Compelled self‑incrimination via action plan: The complainant was directed to draft his own "improvement plan" for alleged behavioral issues identified by management. He contends this tactic was designed to manufacture evidence against him, entrap him into memorializing supposed deficiencies, and set up constructive discharge. Such compelled self‑incrimination is alleged to be retaliatory and obstructive under ADA § 12203 and USERRA § 4311.
- Exclusion from interviews and operational decisions: The complainant was excluded from interviews for essential positions that would report directly to him or materially affect the operations he is accountable for. He contends this exclusion undermined his authority, obstructed his ability to manage effectively, and constituted retaliation during active ADA/USERRA invocation.
- Unresolved IT anomalies obstructing management functions: Following the complainant's November 17, 2025 Final Notice to Ball Corporation, his employee management system began exhibiting unexplained glitches. Specifically, he was unable to interact with the grading scale for his direct reports — a core function of his role. Despite submitting an IT ticket, the issue remains unresolved. The complainant asserts this anomaly further obstructs his ability to perform duties and may constitute retaliatory interference.
- Failure to engage in good‑faith dialogue despite ADA/USERRA invocation: Despite repeated requests for accommodations and a revised PIP, Ball failed to initiate meaningful dialogue or issue a compliant plan. Instead, enforcement of the unrevised PIP continued. The complainant asserts this refusal to engage in the interactive process violates ADA § 12112(b)(5)(A) and constitutes retaliation under ADA § 12203.
Escalation to Corporate LeadershipThe complainant further asserts that:
- Since November 10, 2025, Ball's Vice President of Legal, Hannah Lim, along with the entire Northeast regional team, has been directly aware of the situation. Despite this, the behavior and refusals have continued.
- Since November 17, 2025, Ball's C‑suite executives — including the CEO, CFO, and senior leadership — have been formally informed and requested to stop and correct these practices. According to the complainant, they have done nothing but permit the behaviors to continue.
Supporting DocumentationThe complainant states that he has retained
all supporting documentation to prove the claims outlined in this release, as well as additional claims not detailed here. These documents — including original and altered medical packets, calendar entries, emails, screenshots, IT ticket records, and contemporaneous notes — have been provided to both the
EEOC and the
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) for review.
Chronology of Retaliation and Obstruction
October 9, 2025 – Rumors of termination circulated internally.
October 10, 2025 – Plant Manager referred to the complainant as a "liar" for the third time.
October 15, 2025 – HR breached confidentiality after a protected disclosure.
October 22, 2025 – Plant Manager accused the complainant of "destroying culture" and dismissed disability-related explanations as "excuses."
November 5, 2025 – Complainant placed on a vague, discriminatory PIP citing subjective behavioral criteria.
November 10, 2025 – ADA accommodation request submitted; mocking remarks overheard in closed-door meeting.
November 14, 2025 – HR delivered burdensome medical packet, then altered it after mention of legal review.
November 17, 2025 – Final legal notice delivered to Ball Corporation;
no compliant response received.
November 24, 2025 – Complainant excluded from critical meetings.
November 24, 2025 – In a 3:30 PM meeting, Plant Manager criticized the complainant's operational directive regarding dashboard visibility, undermining his authority.
December 1, 2025 – Complainant excluded from 3:30 PM interview for EHS Manager a critical role reporting to him.
December 2, 2025 – After Ball Corporation received formal notice of the EEOC charge, the company abruptly shifted its position. Following nearly a month of stonewalling and repeated refusals to engage in the interactive process, management attempted to retroactively accept the complainant's psychologist's letter. The complainant asserts this sudden reversal demonstrates reactive behavior only after federal oversight was triggered, not genuine good‑faith compliance.
Statement from the Complainant"These coercive reminders are not performance management,"
said the complainant. "They are unlawful demands designed to intimidate during protected activity. Managers who engage in such conduct may face personal liability under ADA, USERRA, and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act statutes. Corporate leadership has been directly informed, yet continues to allow these violations."
Stakeholder ImpactBall Corporation supplies aluminum packaging to major global brands including Coca‑Cola, Red Bull, and Anheuser‑Busch. Institutional investors such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street emphasize ESG compliance, making transparency and accountability essential.
The EEOC has acknowledged receipt of the draft charge and initiated its standard review process. No findings have been made at this time, and all parties are presumed compliant unless and until a determination is issued.
Media Contact Benjamin H. Email: benjamin.h@dhiwire.com
Photos:
https://www.prlog.org/13114292/1
https://www.prlog.org/13114292/2
https://www.prlog.org/13114292/3
Account Phone Number