After 37 years, she says her exit came with a "retirement" letter she never asked for
A 59-year-old manager says Duke Energy fired her after 37 years - then mailed her a letter congratulating her on a "retirement" she says she never took.
The former manager sued Duke Energy Business Services on August 13, 2026, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. She alleges she was fired because of her age and gender and in retaliation for taking medical leave, bringing claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII, the Ohio Civil Rights Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
According to the complaint, she started at the company in March 1989 and had a clean record until early 2026 - a performance bonus every eligible year and a "Valued Contributor" tag in multiple cycles.
Her case turns first on workload. The filing says she was the only woman and the oldest of four Senior Products and Services Managers under the same supervisor, and that, upon information and belief, the other three were younger men. Starting around February 2025, the complaint says, her portfolio climbed to 13 programs while her male peers carried roughly a quarter to a third as many. She alleges she asked three times - in July 2025, September 2025, and January 2026 - to have the load rebalanced, and that it never was.
Then she took leave. After knee surgery in September 2025, she was out on approved FMLA leave through the end of November. During that stretch, the complaint alleges, the company cut off her access and pulled her from vendor communications, and her core work was left to pile up rather than reassigned. She says she came back to a backlog of her own unfinished tasks.
The performance review is where HR readers will lean in. The filing states that during her March 2026 review, her supervisor "repeatedly raised" the medical leave, faulted her for missed work, and said colleagues had covered for her while she was out. Her merit raise, the complaint says, was cut to about 0.50% of a possible 3%.
Roughly ten weeks after returning, she was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan. The complaint says the only stated reason was that she needed to be "more concise," and that the plan set "no benchmarks, no metrics, and no pass or fail criteria." Her supervisor, the filing says, called it "very informal." Asked for examples, she says she was pointed to one conversation from eight months earlier.
In April 2026, according to the complaint, she was told she had failed the plan and was terminated on or about April 27, with the company citing the PIP. She alleges there was "no meaningful investigation," and that when she later asked for the plan and its criteria, the company refused. She says it then sent a letter honoring her "retirement" and offering a gift - though, the filing states, she never retired.
She alleges the stated reason was "pretext" for discrimination and retaliation, and that the company is replacing her with someone "substantially younger and/or male." She is seeking compensatory, liquidated and punitive damages, reinstatement or front pay, and attorney fees.
The claims turn on how work was spread across the team, how her leave figured into her review, and how quickly the company moved from the performance plan to termination.
None of the allegations have been tested, and no court has ruled on the claims.
