Publisher's Note: It appears the large employer involved in multiple EEOC complaints from the story below has told a certain department's employees that they must contact legal if they are contacted by a member of the state of federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Let me be clear, if anyone is contacted by the EEOC or the NEOC as the case may present, rest assured that your employer already knows that you are a potential witness. Demanding or otherwise instructing you to contact legal is a bit disingenuous at the least, and potentially witness tampering, if the effect that employees take away from this is that they must comply with their employer's wishes or face the prospect of loss on standing or employment for willingly participating in the discovery process.
At least one employee has contacted one case plaintiff and expressed this concern, citing the need to keep their current employment intact. The words from the conversation clearly demonstrate that this employee is afraid of retaliation, especially having seen how it works with others in their department who have since left the employ of the company.
It is a shame and a travesty that a large employer would stoop to such levels, assuming the allegations are true, that it means more to them to coerce testimony through intimidation and fear of losing one's job tactics.
=========
There is a certain large employer in the town who has been the recipient of two EEOC complaints in the last year. These two complaints, from the same department, have been provided by two separate individuals, one who was fired and one who had to leave in order to escape the constant bullying and sexism they felt were persistently being delivered.
While both cases are similar in that the manager involved was rated among the lowest in the entire
company for several years, each is its own independent matter. This week a courageous team member from their former department passed information along about how they were to tell the corporate legal department if anyone from the EEOC were to contact them about specific cases.
Now, it could be the company wants to know what is going to be said so as to prepare a defense against false charges they have already responded to. Whether illegal or not, the manner in which this information was conveyed to the troops, so to speak, smacks of witness tampering. For the record, I do not know if you are required to tell your employer what you intend to say to any governmental agency, especially since they have the opportunity to cross examine all evidence.
I have worked for a company in the past that fired me, and subsequently lied about the circumstances of that termination. They libeled me and obfuscated the truth in order to prevent me from obtaining unemployment insurance. They coordinated their attack between the advertising group and the legal group in order to avoid paying me, just because I blew a whistle on them.
I have inside knowledge of the big local company's history with EEOC complaints. I have heard a director say that they would hire someone to pick a fight with the claimant in an EEOC case, just so they could be fired for violating workplace rules. Incredibly, this statement was made in a room full of very senior company managers, including department heads.
Lastly, I want you all to know that the poor manager, the man in the middle, as they like to refer to themselves, has taken a new victim to punish and exercise his brand of Machiavellian control. I hope in all honesty that this person will find another position, but there is some speculation that a recent interview, (just to get away from their boss) may have been tampered with against all company rules to the contrary. If the big employer is not careful, they will likely earn yet another claim to content with.
It leaves me to wonder, why does this company continue to prop up this manager? After all, two VP's have retired for health reasons, or to spend more time, yada yada, yada. We all know what that really means for them. It is time the Big employer also used that kind of logic on first and second line managers.
For the record, the man in the middle should be given his day in court. If he be innocent as his claim, let him be restored to his former mediocrity. If he be found wanting, let him be found to be suitably rewarded with a promotion to customer. Let also the company be punished and held to account for at least three years of efforts to brand one of our claimants as deficient and lacking in leadership competencies, despite the ability to prove such a claim.
For those who are interested, you can read about EEOC and witness tampering when a big company attempts to intimidate claimants or Potential Witnesses by clicking the following link.
http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100624_0000287.EWA.htm/qx
It is a violation of state and federal law to intimidate or coerce employees, present or former, in order to effect the outcome of a pending case. There is a complete history of this case and this particular intimidation matter is being referred to both cases as a matter of legal protection for both claimants.
The truth will come out and it will not be pretty.
No comments:
Post a Comment