Veteran’s EEOC Charge Against Ball Corporation

Westminster, Colorado Dec 1, 2025 (Issuewire.com) Following a formal charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Ball Corporation, a senior operations leader and U.S. military veteran is now urging current and former employees to come forward if they have experienced discrimination, retaliation, or obstruction in the workplace.

The charge, currently under federal investigation, alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). It details a series of retaliatory actions taken after the complainant disclosed a disability and requested accommodations including altered medical documentation, refusal to accept provider letters, and threats of termination during protected activity.

These tactics are designed to isolate and silence, said the complainant, who has authorized public disclosure of the filing. But silence is what allows these patterns to continue. If youve faced similar treatment at Ball Corporation whether related to disability, military service, race, gender, or any protected status now is the time to speak.

Ball Corporation, headquartered in Westminster, Colorado, supplies aluminum packaging to major global brands including Coca-Cola, Red Bull, and Anheuser-Busch. These companies maintain supplier codes of conduct that prohibit retaliation and discrimination. Institutional investors such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street have also emphasized ESG standards making transparency and accountability essential to stakeholder trust.

The EEOC has acknowledged receipt of the charge and initiated its standard review process. No findings have been made at this time, and all parties are presumed to be in compliance unless and until a determination is issued.

Allegations of Retaliation and Bad-Faith Conduct

According to the EEOC charge and supporting documentation, the complainant alleges that Ball Corporation repeatedly declined opportunities to resolve the matter in good faith. Despite multiple attempts to engage constructively and provide off-ramps for resolution, the company allegedly escalated its response following the complainants protected disclosures.

The charge outlines a pattern of retaliatory and obstructive behavior, including:

• Altering previously submitted medical documentation after the complainant referenced legal review

• Requesting direct communication from the complainants healthcare provider to HR, bypassing standard documentation protocols

• Refusing to accept a formal providers letter, instead insisting on the use of an internal packet not required by law

• Failing to engage in a good-faith interactive process, as required under the ADA

• Threatening termination while the complainant was engaged in protected activity, including pressuring him to draft a self-authored improvement plan under duress

• Reframing the plan as an action plan after the initial EEOC complaint was filed

• Social isolation and exclusion from key communications, which the complainant asserts created a retaliatory and hostile work environment

These actions, the complainant contends, were not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of retaliation and procedural manipulation aimed at discouraging the exercise of federally protected rights.

Individuals who wish to share their experiences or seek guidance are encouraged to contact the complainant directly at [email protected] Confidentiality will be respected.

This release is submitted/approved by the individual who filed the EEOC charge. The email address provided is my personal/professional contact. I am not a third-party firm or legal representative.