Complaint and Jury Demand Filed by Dorothy Shackleford Against the Kroger Company with Jury Demand. Plaintiff Requests Summons Issued. Receipt No: AMIEDC-10661951 - Fee: $ 405. County of 1st Plaintiff: Macomb - County Where Action Arose: Ingham - County of 1st Defendant: Ingham. [Previously Dismissed Case: No] [Possible Companion Case (s): None] (Batey, Scott)
1Plaintiff, Dorothy Shackleford, is a resident of the City of Mt. Clemens, County of Macomb and State of Michigan.
2Defendant, The Kroger Co. (“Kroger”), is a foreign profit corporation company whose registered agent is CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service, whose resident office is located 3410 Belle Chase Way, Suite 600, in the City of Lansing, County of Ingham, State of Michigan.
3The events producing the original injury occurred in Wayne County in the Eastern District, Southern Division of Michigan.
4Plaintiff brings this action for damages stemming from the acts and/or omissions of Defendants constituting age discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment and adverse employment action to the Plaintiff in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 and the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCLA 37.2201, et seq. (“ELCRA”) which resulted in emotional and economic damages to Plaintiff.
5The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, there is a federal question pursuant to the ADA and the ADEA and jurisdiction and venue are otherwise proper in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan and Southern Division.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
6Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 5 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
7Plaintiff, Dorothy Shacklefford is a seventy-six (74 female who began her employment with Defendant on May 3, 2002 and was most recently employed Baker’s Manager.
8Plaintiff began her employment at the Kroger at 16 and Grosebeck where she worked under 2015 when she was transferred to the 8 Mile and Harper Avenue store.
9In 2023 a new store manager began working at Plaintiff’s store and immediately began targeting Plaintiff due to her age.
10He would continuously ask her “how long have you been here” and “how long are you gonna stay.”
11Everyone in the store would tell Plaintiff he was targeting her and wanted to get rid of her due to her age.
12In November 2025 Plaintiff was suspended pending investigation for allegedly using her phone in the store.
13Prior to her suspension, Plaintiff had no other written disciplinary actions against her.
14Plaintiff was treated differently than similarly situated younger employees and saw 4-5 employees in the 30’s and 40’s also using their phones at the time she was disciplined.
15Prior to Plaintiff’s suspension, there had been no other Kroger employees disciplined for using their phone at the 8 Mile and Harper Avenue store.
16Plaintiff was terminated on December 7, 2025 due to her age and replaced by a younger woman in her 30’s.
17Plaintiff was terminated for allegedly using her phone in the store while other similarly situated younger employees in their 30’s and 40’s were not terminated, or even disciplined for using their phones.
18During the time period in question, Kroger was Plaintiff’s employer and Plaintiff was their employee within the meaning of the ADEA and the
ELCRA.
19Defendant, Kroger, is responsible for all acts committed by their agents, representatives and employees within the scope of their employment.
20Defendant, through its agents, representatives and employees were predisposed to harass Plaintiff on the basis of her disability and age and acted in accordance with that predisposition.
21Defendant’s actions were intentional, or were carried out with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights and sensibilities.
22On January 15, 2026 the EEOC issued Plaintiff a Right to Sue letter, granting Plaintiff the right to bring suit against Defendant for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621.
COUNT I AGE DISCRIMINATION
23Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 22 of the Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
24Pursuant to the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCLA 37.2201, et seq. and the Age Discrimination Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 Plaintiff is guaranteed the right to be free from discrimination and/or termination from her employer and/or supervisors based upon her age.
25Plaintiff’s age was a factor in Defendants’ employment decisions, including adverse employment actions and termination.
26Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer within the meaning of the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCLA 37.2201, et seq. and the Age Discrimination Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621.
27During the course of her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome age discrimination including adverse employment action based upon her age by Defendants creating a hostile work environment by Defendant and its employees.
28The age discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation and adverse employment actions by Defendant had the purpose and/or effect of substantially interfering with Plaintiff's employment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, and offensive employment environment.
29Defendant had both actual and constructive notice that they were creating an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment for Plaintiff.
Read the full filing
You’re reading pages 1–5 of 8. Register free to read the complete 8-page transcript on this page.
Register free to continue reading →
These are public U.S. federal court records, available free from PACER and the court. Registration unlocks our full on-page transcript — a convenience service.
advertisement
Public U.S. federal court record (district court docket 73111723, document 1). Source via the RECAP Archive (Free Law Project). The same record is available from PACER. Informational only — not legal advice.