Allegations of age discrimination and wrongful termination have been brought forward in a federal lawsuit against a local public employer, raising questions about workplace fairness and employment practices for older workers. The complaint was filed by Nathan James Wright in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on April 21, 2026, naming the Lucas County Engineer’s Office and Mike Pniewski in his official capacity as defendants.
According to the filing, Wright is a 56-year-old former Foreman/Construction Supervisor with over 25 years of experience who accepted a position as General Foreman at the Lucas County Engineer’s Office after leaving his long-term employment with the City of Toledo. The complaint states that Wright applied for the General Foreman role in November 2023 after seeing a job posting that described supervisory and administrative responsibilities. He was offered the position at an annual salary of $74,526.40 and began work on February 26, 2024.
Wright alleges that upon starting his new job, he discovered significant discrepancies between what was promised during interviews and what was actually assigned to him. Instead of performing supervisory duties as outlined in the job description and offer letter, Wright claims he was given tasks typical of a lower-level Crew Leader position. He reports being handed a document titled ‘Crew Leader Expectations and Responsibilities’ on his first day rather than materials relevant to his hired role. Additionally, Wright states he was denied access to an individual vehicle—a benefit discussed during interviews—and instead required to share transportation with crew members.
The complaint further details that when Wright questioned these inconsistencies with his supervisor John Bowser, Bowser allegedly responded: ‘I just changed the title to let you make more money,’ indicating that the General Foreman title may have been used solely as an inducement for higher pay while actual duties remained those of a Crew Leader. Wright asserts this misrepresentation prevented him from fulfilling key managerial functions such as independently managing work orders or planning routes.
Wright also describes experiencing a hostile work environment from his first week on the job. He alleges ongoing harassment by Bowser—including frequent site visits intended to undermine him—public confrontations before other employees, repeated demands to perform laborer tasks inconsistent with his title, and derogatory comments referencing his age. According to Wright’s account, younger employees were not subjected to similar treatment or scrutiny.
The complaint outlines additional issues such as denial of proper breaks due to constant supervision requirements and lack of training or resources needed for success in the advertised role. Despite reporting these concerns both verbally and in writing to Human Resources (Josie Smith), Wright says no corrective action was taken.
On August 14, 2024, Wright filed a charge of discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission alleging wrongful termination, age discrimination, and harassment. Shortly thereafter—on the same day—he was placed on paid administrative leave by defendants rather than being allowed to continue working or having his complaints addressed directly. He remained on leave until October 18, 2024 when he was discharged from employment.
Following this discharge, defendants challenged Wright’s eligibility for unemployment benefits; however, according to documentation cited in the complaint, state authorities found that he had been ‘discharged without just cause.’ The lawsuit also notes that after Wright’s departure younger individuals were promoted into positions he previously held.
In legal terms, Wright brings three main causes of action: age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), creation of a hostile work environment based on age-related remarks and conduct by supervisors and colleagues; and retaliation following protected activity related to filing charges with civil rights authorities. He asserts all administrative remedies were exhausted prior to filing suit—including timely submission of charges with both state agencies and receipt of an EEOC Notice of Right to Sue dated January 22, 2026.
Wright seeks judgment against defendants on all counts along with back pay covering lost wages since October 18, 2024 through any future judgment date; front pay or reinstatement; compensatory damages for emotional distress; liquidated damages equal to economic losses per ADEA provisions; interest; costs associated with litigation; and any further relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Nathan James Wright is representing himself (pro se) in this matter. The case is identified as Civil Action No.: 3:26-cv-00945-JRK.
Source: 326cv00945_Wright_v_Lucas_County_Engineers_Office_Complaint_Northern_District_Ohio.pdf
