Alejandro Mendoza V. Foot Locker Retail, Inc.

Case Background

On September 21, 2021, Alejandro Mendoza filed an age discrimination lawsuit against Foot Locker Retail, Inc., a subsidiary of Foot Locker, Inc. The lawsuit alleged wrongful termination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The case was filed in the United States District Court, Texas Western (San Antonio). Judge Xavier Rodriguez presided over the trial. [Case number: 5:21cv903]

Cause

Alejandro Mendoza, 61, began working at Foot Locker Retail, Inc. in 1983 as an Assistant Store Manager. Over the years, he earned steady promotions, culminating in his role as District Sales Manager in 2004. In this position, Mendoza oversaw 17 stores generating $38 million annually. Between 2003 and 2017, he consistently received positive evaluations and was never placed on a performance improvement plan.

However, in 2018, Regional Vice President Christina Deanda-Sarrat rated Mendoza as “Needs Attention,” despite high scores in key categories like sales and shrink. Her comments emphasized the company’s “Youth Culture,” suggesting a shift in priorities. This marked the first overt indication of potential age-based discrimination.

In March 2019, during a regional seminar, Deanda-Sarrat humiliated Mendoza publicly and implied younger employees were better suited for leadership roles. Mendoza documented this incident and reported it to Human Resources in May. The situation worsened in April when Deanda-Sarrat issued a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) with vague and subjective goals. Her remarks about Mendoza’s need to “evolve” and that tenure could be “bad” reinforced her age-related bias.

Mendoza repeatedly reported Deanda-Sarrat’s behavior, citing emotional distress and discrimination. Despite his complaints, Foot Locker dismissed his concerns, claiming an investigation found no evidence. Deanda-Sarrat later altered the PIP, retroactively inventing criticisms and escalating expectations, which further set Mendoza up for failure.

In June 2019, the company terminated Mendoza, replacing him with a younger employee approximately 15–20 years his junior. Mendoza’s termination followed months of discriminatory treatment that aligned with the company’s push for a “Youth Culture.” Foot Locker failed to address Mendoza’s allegations of age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, allowing Deanda-Sarrat’s actions to go unchecked.

Damages

The Plaintiff sought damages for losses caused by the Defendant’s age-based discrimination, including lost wages, benefits, and prejudgment interest. He requested liquidated damages to double the award, asserting the discrimination was willful, and sought the maximum damages allowed by law.

He asked to be reinstated as District Sales Manager or receive front pay if reinstatement was not possible. Additionally, he sought attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, litigation costs, and both prejudgment and post-judgment interest. Finally, the Plaintiff requested any other relief the court found appropriate.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Alejandro Mendoza
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Maureen Farrell | Cory Rush
  • Defendant(s): Foot Locker Retail, Inc. a subsidiary of Foot Locker, Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Ashley N. Harrison | Norma N. Bennett | William Martucci | Emily M. Pedersen

Claims

The Plaintiff brought three claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation.

Age Discrimination:
Plaintiff argued that Defendant discriminated against him based on his age by fabricating a pretext for his termination. As an employee over 40, he was part of a protected class, and the Defendant’s actions intentionally and recklessly violated his rights, causing him harm.

Hostile Work Environment:
The Plaintiff claimed that Ms. Sarrat harassed him due to his age, creating a hostile work environment. Despite notifying human resources, the Defendant took no corrective action, allowing the harassment to continue. The Plaintiff argued this willful inaction violated the ADEA and caused significant harm.

Retaliation:
The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant retaliated against him after he opposed age discrimination. He linked his termination directly to his complaints about the discriminatory conduct, claiming retaliation under the ADEA, which caused him further damages.

In all claims, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant’s unlawful actions resulted in significant damages.

Defense

Foot Locker denied liability for the Plaintiff’s claims, asserting that its actions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons. The company argued that the Plaintiff’s age or protected activity did not influence any decisions made, and it would have taken the same actions regardless. Foot Locker further claimed it had effective policies to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and it took reasonable steps to address any alleged issues. The company also contended that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages, that no compensable damage occurred, and that its employees’ actions were not the proximate cause of any harm.

Jury Verdict

The trial took place from March 18 to March 20, 2024, with District Judge Xavier Rodriguez overseeing the proceedings. After three days of testimony, on March 20, 2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Foot Locker, rejecting Mendoza’s claims in this age discrimination lawsuit.

Court Documents:

Available upon request