The audacity of continued employment

It's a question that echoes through every corner of this ordeal: "How can he still have his job?" This page explores the profound injustice of an individual maintaining their position despite their alleged role in "The Hershey Thing." It's a stark reminder of the power dynamics at play and the frustrating lack of accountability that often plagues such situations. Join us as we voice our dismay and challenge the status quo.

What Does It Mean When a Manager Does All of This… and Keeps His Job?
Rakestraw v. The Hershey Company | Case No. 2:25-cv-02682-JWB-TJJ | D. Kan.
This isn't complicated.
At Hershey's Edgerton, Kansas facility, a manager made a series of decisions. Not accidents. Decisions.
The Decisions
A documented disability. Accommodation required. Anti-fatigue mats were already there. Paid for. Sitting on the floor. About 50 feet away. They weren't moved. That decision implicates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
An employee was injured. No report was made. That implicates requirements enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Medical response was delayed. Another decision. When documentation finally appeared, the injury was classified differently than described. Another decision.
Employees were required to be on the floor, in uniform, ready to work — before the clock started. Not one time. Not one shift. Over and over again. That implicates the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hundreds of employees.
Now Here's the Part That Matters
The manager who made those decisions still has his job. Still has his title. Still gets a paycheck.
Hershey enforces attendance policies that cost employees their jobs. Miss enough time? You're gone. But decisions involving safety, medical response, and wages? Different outcome.
Let's Call It What It Is
Companies don't just act. They choose what they tolerate. They choose what they defend. They choose who they keep.
The Hershey Company made its choice. They kept the manager. They hired Morgan Lewis & Bockius and Shook Hardy & Bacon. They're spending real money to fight this. Not to fix it. To defend it.
When a company stands behind decisions like these — when it keeps the person who made them — when it invests in defending them — that's not distance. That's alignment. That's support.
One More Thing
Their lawyers are still here too. At $500 or more an hour.
All of this. All of it. Over rubber mats they already had. Rubber mats their own policies said they were required to provide. Rubber mats sitting 50 feet away on a floor protecting nobody.
That is what Hershey chose to defend instead.
Final Word
You can say it's policy. You can say it's procedure. You can say it's being handled.
But actions don't lie. And neither do choices.
I'm still here. And I'm not going anywhere.

The audacity of continued employment

Statement of Claims

Count I – Failure to Provide Required Safety Equipment
Defendant failed to provide mandated rubber safety mats despite written policy and training materials requiring their use.

Count II – Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation (ADA Violations)
Defendant was informed of Plaintiff’s neuropathy and related limitations and refused to provide reasonable accommodations as required under disability law.

Count III – Failure to File a Mandatory Injury Report
Defendant declined to document an on-the-job injury after Plaintiff reported and visibly exhibited wounds, in violation of workplace reporting standards.

Count IV – Denial of Medical Treatment / Failure to Render Aid
Defendant failed to provide basic medical attention or first aid after being notified of an active workplace injury.

Count V – Assignment to Unsafe Work Conditions
Defendant knowingly required Plaintiff to work at the only station without safety mats while numerous alternative employees were available, creating foreseeable risk of injury.

Count VI – Unpaid Required Work (Wage and Hour Violations)
Defendant required employees to don and doff protective gear off the clock, resulting in uncompensated work time and systematic underpayment.

Count VII – Retaliation for Reporting Safety Concerns
After Plaintiff raised safety and accommodation issues, Defendant engaged in retaliatory conduct contrary to federal and state protections.

Count VIII – Wrongful Termination Following Workplace Injury
Plaintiff was terminated after sustaining injuries caused by Defendant’s assignments and after reporting safety violations.

The audacity of continued employment

Statement of Claims

Count I – Failure to Provide Required Safety EquipmentDefendant failed to provide mandated rubber safety mats despite written policy and training materials requiring their use.

Count II – Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation (ADA Violations)Defendant was informed of Plaintiff’s neuropathy and related limitations and refused to provide reasonable accommodations as required under disability law.

Count III – Failure to File a Mandatory Injury ReportDefendant declined to document an on-the-job injury after Plaintiff reported and visibly exhibited wounds, in violation of workplace reporting standards.

Count IV – Denial of Medical Treatment / Failure to Render AidDefendant failed to provide basic medical attention or first aid after being notified of an active workplace injury.

Count V – Assignment to Unsafe Work ConditionsDefendant knowingly required Plaintiff to work at the only station without safety mats while numerous alternative employees were available, creating foreseeable risk of injury.

Count VI – Unpaid Required Work (Wage and Hour Violations)Defendant required employees to don and doff protective gear off the clock, resulting in uncompensated work time and systematic underpayment.

Count VII – Retaliation for Reporting Safety ConcernsAfter Plaintiff raised safety and accommodation issues, Defendant engaged in retaliatory conduct contrary to federal and state protections.

Count VIII – Wrongful Termination Following Workplace InjuryPlaintiff was terminated after sustaining injuries caused by Defendant’s assignments and after reporting safety violations.

Count I – Failure to Provide Required Safety Equipment
Defendant failed to provide mandated rubber safety mats despite written policy and training materials requiring their use.

Count II – Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation (ADA Violations)
Defendant was informed of Plaintiff’s neuropathy and related limitations and refused to provide reasonable accommodations as required under disability law.

Count III – Failure to File a Mandatory Injury Report
Defendant declined to document an on-the-job injury after Plaintiff reported and visibly exhibited wounds, in violation of workplace reporting standards.

Count IV – Denial of Medical Treatment / Failure to Render Aid
Defendant failed to provide basic medical attention or first aid after being notified of an active workplace injury.

Count V – Assignment to Unsafe Work Conditions
Defendant knowingly required Plaintiff to work at the only station without safety mats while numerous alternative employees were available, creating foreseeable risk of injury.

Count VI – Unpaid Required Work (Wage and Hour Violations)
Defendant required employees to don and doff protective gear off the clock, resulting in uncompensated work time and systematic underpayment.

Count VII – Retaliation for Reporting Safety Concerns
After Plaintiff raised safety and accommodation issues, Defendant engaged in retaliatory conduct contrary to federal and state protections.

Count VIII – Wrongful Termination Following Workplace Injury
Plaintiff was terminated after sustaining injuries caused by Defendant’s assignments and after reporting safety violations.