A quarter just ended a quarter-century career — over a policy five weeks old
A 50-cent purchase ended a 24-year career at Burlington Stores. Now the retailer faces an age discrimination lawsuit in federal court.
Ana Teixeira, 59, worked at Burlington's Store #362 in Orange, Connecticut, starting in October 2001. She opened and closed the store, served as Manager on Duty, ran the cash office, and interviewed prospective hires. She never received a single disciplinary action.
On March 24, 2025, according to the lawsuit, Teixeira picked up a pair of children's booties she believed were priced at $4.89. At the register, the item rang up at 25 cents — a final markdown price she did not expect. The total came to 50 cents for two items. She did not use her employee discount.
What Teixeira apparently did not know, according to the lawsuit filed February 15 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (Teixeira v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., No. 3:26-cv-00235), was that Burlington had quietly revised its associate discount policy roughly five weeks earlier, barring employees from purchasing 25-cent final markdown merchandise — a pricing category that had never existed before. The company communicated the change through BPlanner+, a scheduling platform, instructing store managers to pass the word along. There is no evidence Teixeira was personally notified.
Eleven days after the purchase, Burlington's District Asset Protection Manager pulled Teixeira into the back office. The investigation lasted 24 minutes. His notes, as cited in the lawsuit, reflect that Teixeira explained she tried to buy an item marked at $4 and had no idea it would ring up at 25 cents. She offered to return the merchandise. It did not matter. She was suspended that evening and terminated four days later. Burlington's records in Workday classified her departure as "Not Regrettable."
The lawsuit alleges Burlington skipped every step of progressive discipline — no verbal warning, no written warning, no suspension short of termination — despite its own policy allowing for a range of responses. The company also stopped conducting performance appraisals for non-supervisory employees in fiscal year 2020, ensuring that the track records of its most tenured workers went undocumented.
Teixeira further alleges that younger employees who made the same purchase were not disciplined, and that Burlington has been replacing older, full-time staff with younger, part-time workers.
No determination has been made on the merits. Teixeira seeks back pay, front pay, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees.
For HR professionals watching, the case surfaces a familiar set of risks: a policy rollout with no documented individual acknowledgment, a termination with no progressive discipline, and an investigation that took less time than a lunch break — for an employee whose record was spotless for a quarter century.
