A dispute over an unfulfilled promotion and subsequent termination has led to a lawsuit alleging age discrimination and retaliation under federal law. The case centers on claims that an employee was dismissed shortly after questioning why her promised salary increase had not been implemented.
Elena Zaharia filed the complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Milner, Inc., on April 3, 2026. According to court documents, Zaharia is seeking relief under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and the anti-retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The complaint states that in December 2025, Milner’s Chief Financial Officer publicly announced Zaharia’s promotion within the Accounting/Finance department along with a corresponding salary increase. Despite this announcement, Zaharia did not receive either the new title or pay rate. When she reported this discrepancy to Human Resources, she was terminated less than thirty days later. Zaharia challenges her firing as unlawful under both the ADEA and FLSA.
Zaharia describes herself as a seasoned accounting professional who had been identified internally as being on a managerial or leadership track at Milner. She asserts that throughout her employment she met or exceeded expectations, received positive feedback from leadership, and was never subject to any disciplinary action or performance improvement plan.
According to Zaharia’s filing, company officials described Milner as “continuing to grow” and “continu[ing] to expand” in public statements made in February 2026. Despite these statements about growth and an overwhelming workload in her department, Zaharia alleges that she was selected for termination during what Milner described as a “Reduction in Force” on December 30, 2025.
The complaint highlights that Zaharia was the only managerial-track employee let go during this reduction while younger employees—including a recently hired 22-year-old—were retained in comparable roles. Zaharia contends that these younger employees had less experience and were not on similar leadership tracks but were nonetheless kept on staff.
Zaharia argues that the timing between her internal complaints about unpaid wages and her termination supports an inference of retaliatory motive under federal law. She claims that Milner’s stated reason for terminating her—a reduction in force—is pretextual and masks unlawful age discrimination as well as retaliation for asserting wage rights protected by law.
The lawsuit outlines two main causes of action: age discrimination under the ADEA and retaliation under Section 215(a)(3) of the FLSA. In support of these claims, Zaharia notes that she is over forty years old—a member of a class protected by federal law—and asserts that her job performance met all legitimate expectations at all relevant times.
Zaharia further alleges that after she raised concerns about not receiving her authorized salary increase, management interfered with internal systems related to processing her promotion before ultimately terminating her employment less than thirty days after announcing it. She claims this sequence demonstrates both discriminatory intent based on age and retaliatory conduct following protected activity under labor law.
As remedies, Zaharia seeks back pay covering lost wages and benefits from the date of termination through judgment; front pay or reinstatement; liquidated damages equal to monetary losses; compensatory damages for emotional distress; punitive damages where allowed by law; interest; attorneys’ fees; costs; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The case is identified as Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01819-AT-AWH in filings submitted by Elena Zaharia against Milner, Inc., with a jury trial demanded.
Source: 126cv1819_Elena_Zaharia_v_Milner_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georgia.pdf
