Former Colorado Bowlero employees sue, claim age discrimination

Jo Alloway went from working the counter at a Wheat Ridge bowling center to running the operation. After years in the hospitality business, Mark Peters was hired as assistant manager at a Lone Tree bowling alley.

Then the bowling centers were bought by Bowlero Corp., formerly Bowlmor AMF Corp. Roughly two years later, Alloway was out of a job. “They walked in one day with an envelope and said, ‘Here’s your final pay. I need you to pack up and leave,’” she said.

After about two years on the job, Peters was fired. He said the managers didn’t give him a definitive reason why. “I’ve never, ever, ever in my entire life in any career in any place I’ve ever been in been treated like that.”

Alloway and Peters are now among 76 former employees who’ve joined an age discrimination lawsuit against Bowlero, billed as the country’s largest bowling center chain with more than 350 locations. The plaintiffs include people like Alloway, who say they were targeted because of their age, and Peters, who believe they were fired because they wouldn’t get rid of older workers.

Two other Coloradans are plaintiffs as well. There are 13 Bowlero centers in metro Denver.

New York attorney Daniel Dowe believes Alloway, Peters and his other clients were swept out as the company, recently renamed Lucky Strike Entertainment, went about transforming the businesses from catering to league bowling to “date-night bowling, more entertainment” to attract younger customers.

When a childhood friend and others were fired by the company, Dowe started “digging in” and found what he said was a pattern of older employees being let go. An amended lawsuit filed Feb. 17 by Dowe Partners said the federal Equal Employment opportunity Commission found that in 57 of the claims, Bowlero violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Early on, Dowe said he tried to reach a settlement with the company. Bowlero declined and Dowe went to the EEOC, which opened two investigations.

The lawsuit against the company said the EEOC commission suggested that Bowlero pay $60 million to resolve the claims. Bowlero “rebuffed” the proposal, which ended the process at the commission, according to the lawsuit

The EEOC didn’t pursue a lawsuit against Bowlero, but issued right-to-sue letters, which signal that administrative efforts were exhausted. The EEOC litigates a small percentage of all charges filed.

Bowlero has asked the courts to dismiss the lawsuit. In a February letter to a federal judge in New York, the company said at least 64 of the former employees didn’t file their complaints within the designated timeframe. Bowlero also argued that individual claims don’t support the allegations of age discrimination.

A conference with the judge and the attorneys is scheduled March 27 in New York, where Bowlero has one of its corporate offices. The Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan law firm, representing Bowlero, filed a new motion Wednesday for a stay of the discovery process.

“This case continues to be a waste of judicial resources. Bowlero will continue to vigorously defend against this repeat litigant’s frivolous lawsuit and pursue its own claims to the fullest extent of law,” the company said in a statement.

A New York state court issued a $5,000 sanction on Dowe in 2019 after a judge ruled his lawsuit over a Bowlero stock transaction was frivolous. Dowe said the lawsuit sought to put aside funds in escrow to protect his clients.

Dowe said he feels good about the discrimination case. He disputed that the EEOC claims weren’t filed in time. An analysis by his office found that the average plaintiff worked for the company and its former iterations for 18 years and was 54 when fired.

“Line of malarkey”

Alloway started working for a Brunswick Bowling center in Wheat Ridge in 2002. She was the sales director when Bowlmor AMF, later Bowlero, bought the business. She became the general manager.

“We had the biggest youth league in the area. We had 40 lanes of youth bowlers every Saturday morning,” Alloway said.

When Bowlero took over, Alloway said she asked several times for guidance on the new owner’s accounting and operations systems. “All they would do is feed you a line of malarkey.”

Alloway was then told her center failed an audit because it wasn’t following company procedures. She was fired in 2015 after questioning orders to cut down trees that belonged to the city and put up a sign that didn’t meet city regulations. She was 61.

“When they sent me on my way, they immediately brought in somebody that was younger than me. This person didn’t have the experience I did,” Alloway said.

The lawsuit against Bowlero said Alloway was discharged as part of a companywide practice of firing employees 40 and older.

One of the plaintiffs is Tom Tanase, the former chief information officer, who was 61 when he was fired in 2023. According to the lawsuit, Tanase told the EEOC that after Bowlero acquired several bowling centers, the staff turnover rate jumped as older employees were fired and younger people were hired to fit a certain image. Tanase said it was known at high levels that people who looked older or were older and overweight were being “managed out.”

Bowlero said it successfully sued Tanase on claims that he hacked into the company’s computer system after he was fired. A U.S. District Court in Virginia awarded Bowlero a summary judgment in the lawsuit.

Not your father’s bowling alley

The new people being hired were “young, attractive, hot females, if we want to be blunt,” said Peters, who was the assistant manager at a Lone Tree Bowlero. He was fired in 2016 after two years at the former Brunswick bowling center. He was 35.

The lawsuit claims Peters’ termination violated the law against age discrimination because he refused to discipline employees that management wanted out because of their age or appearance. Peters said he refused to write up a woman in her mid-50s for being late when the weather was bad. He wouldn’t discipline another woman he called “a rock star.”