HOUSTON – A Spring man has filed a willful retaliation lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Shell Oil Co. after he was allegedly fired for refusing the company’s request to hire candidates based on their age and sex.
Crocket Oaks III filed the lawsuit in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas. He is represented by Mark J. Oberti of Oberti Sullivan LLP. They are seeking a jury trial.
The complaint seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, legal fees and court costs, back pay and front-pay, or reinstatement.
A former FBI special agent, Oaks joined Shell in 2003 and had been promoted several times over the years. He earned more than $325,000 per year as head of Shell Security in the Americas.
With a military background holding the rank of lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, Oaks had government security clearance.
In his position, Oaks reported to James W.D. Hall, a British citizen working in the company’s global headquarters located in The Hague, Netherlands.
According to the complaint, in August 2016, an opening was posted in Oaks’ organization in Houston after an employee was reassigned to a new role in the company. The employee, Bob Schoen, was in his 50s.
After Schoen was reassigned, the suit states Hall sent Oaks an email stating, “Let’s indeed look to backfill Bob’s role with some younger external talent.”
Hall then spoke to Dana Croft, a Shell human resources official, about Oaks’ recommendation to hire an older male, and, according to an email Croft sent to Oaks, Hall, “mentioned his concerns (female talent and early career),” the suit states.
Michael Oliveri, a colonel in the same unit as Oaks, was the applicant selected to fill the position in question.
Oaks was transparent about the connection and the candidates were vetted by Oaks, Schoen, and Pete Lininger, downstream security manager, Americas.
Croft signed off on the process that they followed and their ultimate decision that Oliveri was the best applicant for the position, and to recommend him to the ultimate decision- maker, Hall.
On Sept. 9, 2016, Oaks sent Hall an email reflecting the collective recommendation.
According to the complaint, Oaks refused to hire based on age and sex, and instead continued to recommend hiring the best qualified applicant for the job, who happened to be a male more than 50 years old.
Hall balked at hiring Oliveri, allegedly citing his age (53) and his sex. In fact, he made no secret about his preferences.
Oaks also was concerned about retaliation by Hall.
Hall’s conduct, according to the complaint, violated Shell’s Code of Conduct.
According to the complaint, Oaks refused to hire based on age and sex, and instead continued to recommend hiring the best qualified applicant for the job, who happened to be a male more than 50 years old.
“In other words, Mr. Oaks’ opposed Mr. Hall’s illegal discriminatory desires for him to hire based on age and sex,” the complaint noted. “Shortly thereafter, on Dec. 6, 2016, Shell fired Mr. Oaks in retaliation for his legally protected oppositional conduct, based on the preposterously pretextual false allegation that he had a conflict of interest that required his termination after more than 13 years of spotless employment.”
According to the complaint, Oaks’ termination violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s anti-retaliation provision, the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act.