FLORIDA EMPLOYEE'S TESTIFYING IN A FEDERAL CASE-THIS IS FOR YOU!

[Anonymous]

Please put the case # out here for us. I know of an employee who had their breast fondled by one of the current Fl. Managers, reported it to KS and this manager ended up getting RMBD of the year award. That's how bad things in Florida have been, are and continue to be. Please post any case #'s you have so we can call and get some help!

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder how it feels for TF, TN and KS in Florida.
Probably like an inmate on death row - I am sure thats how they feel.
Knowing they have committed the crimes, and their end is coming very soon.
I bet they are sweating bullets too, knowing that with this type of action on their records, they won't be finding new jobs any time soon.

But you know what - they deserve it.

 

[Anonymous]

what did KS do that's so bad?

 

[Anonymous]

That's why the for-cause statement was made. At-will employment provides for dismissal for any reason not protected by law. If an employee files a complaint and the employee is dismissed for a no-cause reason, EEO and/or the Courts can interpret said action as merely a pretext for discrimination/retaliation. As always, YMMV.

Glad to hear that LCA is without proper representation at the moment.

The reason I said the statement was too broad was because of the phrase "any complaint." Not every complaint is considered to be protected activity for purposes of a retaliation claim. You have to make sure your complaint meets the proper standards, which is why I advised people to seek legal counsel with knowledge of this intricate area of the law.

 

[Anonymous]

There is obviouslly and attorney writting on this board. Can someone give me advice about something please. Am I allowed to tape record any meetings I have with anyone in HR or any attorney. I don't trust them and want protection. Should I bring my own attorney to any meetings? I am in Florida.

 

[Anonymous]

You can record the meetings, yes. If you plan to use it in court, you have to tell them your recording the meeting. You should bring an attorney to ANY meetings with ANY labCorp hr person and or attorney, especially in Florida.

 

[Anonymous]

The reason I said the statement was too broad was because of the phrase "any complaint." Not every complaint is considered to be protected activity for purposes of a retaliation claim. You have to make sure your complaint meets the proper standards, which is why I advised people to seek legal counsel with knowledge of this intricate area of the law.

Any complaint made to EEOC is automatically protected, even if its is found to be without merit. Unless the company can provide a non-discriminatory reason, that is not pretextual, for any employment action it takes, it will continue to experience legal difficulties. This is not an opinion, it is fact. See McDonnell Douglas v. Green, Nix v. WLCY Communications, or a slew of other cases that has siphoned millions out of company coffers because of the utter ineptitude of some employees. Even SHRM tells its professionals to tread very carefully when dealing with individuals who have filed complaints, any action can be deemed retaliatory. EEOC v Navy.

I emphatically disagree that an attorney should be consulted prior to the filing of an EEO complaint. First of all, labor lawyers do not operate on a contingency - unlike Personal Injury attorneys. This is because employment law is so subjective, the outcomes can be erratic, so most ask for a retainer or "fee" prior to working out the case. I'm sure BB and MB had to pay some sort of retainer to get their cases started.

Their issues were different than what we are discussing under Title VII. BB's FMLA case allows for an individual to immediately file in court - no mediation, no administrative agency red tape. MB's is similar. Any cases under Title VII or OFCCP's Executive Order must go through the administrative process first before being able to file in federal court. It will take about a year to get through this process; LCA will not negotiate and will decline to mediate when asked to by the EEOC. 100% of all times.

So, until the the administrative motions are complete, having an attorney involved won't help, and he/she will probably tell you to get back with them when you received your RTS letter.

As to the recording comment, go ahead and record. Just know, absent any whistle-blowing information (in the meeting, they say such and such about so and so), the information cannot be used in court. Florida Statutes state that both individuals must be aware of the recording and agree to it for it to be admissible. This does not apply to info under FS 448.1 Private Employee Whistle Blowing, so long as the information is a violation of law like firing a bunch of African-Americans and Hispanics, but not Caucasians. Or having knowledge of illegal practices in violation of any state or federal statute (Anti-Kickback, SOX).

There are plenty of court cases to cite.

 

[Anonymous]

There is obviouslly and attorney writting on this board. Can someone give me advice about something please. Am I allowed to tape record any meetings I have with anyone in HR or any attorney. I don't trust them and want protection. Should I bring my own attorney to any meetings? I am in Florida.

Case law in Florida suggests that business meetings may be recorded.

"It is clear that an oral communication cannot be intercepted and disclosed without the consent of the parties if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy which is recognized by society. See Jatar v. Lamaletto, 758 So. 2d 1167, 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). See also State v. Smith, 641 So. 2d 849, 852 (Fla. 1994) ("[F]or an oral conversation to be protected under section 934.03 the speaker must have an actual subjective expectation of privacy, along with a societal recognition that the expectation is reasonable."). Society does not recognize an absolute right of privacy in a party's office or place of business. See Morningstar v. State, 428 So. 2d 220, 221 (Fla. 1983) (finding that although defendant may have had reasonable expectation of privacy in his private office, that expectation was not one which society was willing to accept as reasonable or willing to protect); Jatar, 758 So. 2d at 1169 ("Society is willing to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations conducted in a private home. However, this recognition does not necessarily extend to conversations conducted in a business office.") (Emphasis in original). Similarly, we don't believe that society would recognize, as reasonable, that such an expectation of privacy exists in a conference call, specifically where the call is held to conduct the business of the company.

Cohen Bros., L.L.C. v. ME Corp., S.A., 872 So. 2d 321, 325 (Fla 3d DCA 2004)

 

[Anonymous]

You can record the meetings, yes. If you plan to use it in court, you have to tell them your recording the meeting.

This is a dangerous and mostly inaccurate statement of the law.

 

[Anonymous]

There is obviouslly and attorney writting on this board. Can someone give me advice about something please. Am I allowed to tape record any meetings I have with anyone in HR or any attorney. I don't trust them and want protection. Should I bring my own attorney to any meetings? I am in Florida.

Case law in Florida suggests that business meetings may be recorded.

"It is clear that an oral communication cannot be intercepted and disclosed without the consent of the parties if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy which is recognized by society. See Jatar v. Lamaletto, 758 So. 2d 1167, 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). See also State v. Smith, 641 So. 2d 849, 852 (Fla. 1994) ("[F]or an oral conversation to be protected under section 934.03 the speaker must have an actual subjective expectation of privacy, along with a societal recognition that the expectation is reasonable."). Society does not recognize an absolute right of privacy in a party's office or place of business. See Morningstar v. State, 428 So. 2d 220, 221 (Fla. 1983) (finding that although defendant may have had reasonable expectation of privacy in his private office, that expectation was not one which society was willing to accept as reasonable or willing to protect); Jatar, 758 So. 2d at 1169 ("Society is willing to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations conducted in a private home. However, this recognition does not necessarily extend to conversations conducted in a business office.") (Emphasis in original). Similarly, we don't believe that society would recognize, as reasonable, that such an expectation of privacy exists in a conference call, specifically where the call is held to conduct the business of the company.

Cohen Bros., L.L.C. v. ME Corp., S.A., 872 So. 2d 321, 325 (Fla 3d DCA 2004)

 

[Anonymous]

Any complaint made to EEOC is automatically protected, even if its is found to be without merit.

Your original post said "any complaint", not "a complaint made to the EEOC." That's still too broad. I'm not trying to bicker, just making sure the employees are well-informed before they assume their jobs are safe, just by virtue of having filed an EEOC complaint. There's nothing "automatic" or guaranteed about protection from retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices. In the Eleventh Circuit, it's very likely that the EEOC will have to meet both objective and subjective tests to qualify as protected activity. Which is why I still think that people should consult an employment attorney at their earliest opportunity. Yes, they may be able to pursue the administrative charge on their own. But they will at least have been informed about their rights and protections, and potential pitfalls, in the process.

As I said, not trying to argue, just to be precise.

 

[Anonymous]

Your original post said "any complaint", not "a complaint made to the EEOC." That's still too broad. I'm not trying to bicker, just making sure the employees are well-informed before they assume their jobs are safe, just by virtue of having filed an EEOC complaint. There's nothing "automatic" or guaranteed about protection from retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices. In the Eleventh Circuit, it's very likely that the EEOC *charge* will have to meet both objective and subjective tests to qualify as protected activity. Which is why I still think that people should consult an employment attorney at their earliest opportunity. Yes, they may be able to pursue the administrative charge on their own. But they will at least have been informed about their rights and protections, and potential pitfalls, in the process.

As I said, not trying to argue, just to be precise.

Edited to add word "charge."

 

[Anonymous]

What is the best way if several of us wanted to get together and file a "joint" complaint about someone who we work for? If we have tried to go to ks and those in hr as well as corporate legal and nothing was done, who do we turn to? Do we dare trust anyone within the company or are we better off seeing outside legal as a group and forming our complaint to the eeoc as a group.

 

[Anonymous]

What is the best way if several of us wanted to get together and file a "joint" complaint about someone who we work for? If we have tried to go to ks and those in hr as well as corporate legal and nothing was done, who do we turn to? Do we dare trust anyone within the company or are we better off seeing outside legal as a group and forming our complaint to the eeoc as a group.

Your complaint will carry much more wieght if filed by a group rather than an individual
Very important - FIRST, consult an employment attorney and split the cost of retainer (if there is one) THEN file with the EEOC and follow the attorney's advice.

 

[Anonymous]

Your complaint will carry much more wieght if filed by a group rather than an individual
Very important - FIRST, consult an employment attorney and split the cost of retainer (if there is one) THEN file with the EEOC and follow the attorney's advice.

Make sure your lawyer knows a lot about employment law.

 

[Anonymous]

Your complaint will carry much more wieght if filed by a group rather than an individual
Very important - FIRST, consult an employment attorney and split the cost of retainer (if there is one) THEN file with the EEOC and follow the attorney's advice.

When employees group together to protest working conditions (and not just discrimination) it is protected under the National Labor Relations Act as "concerted action." No union is necessary either. The NLRB will enforce the law vigorously without charge. They are very successful and aggressive.

 

[Anonymous]

You don't want anyone except a labor law attorney. Make sure you ask around to find someone with a good reputation as there are many more BAD lawyers than there are good ones. Just read this entire post and look at how bad attorneys can cause huge issues. And above all else, DO NOT talk to anyone from the company or outside who calls you and says they represent YOU. This is a complete "set up." They represent the company and will attempt to get information out of you which they will later use against you.

 

[Anonymous]

Your original post said "any complaint", not "a complaint made to the EEOC." That's still too broad. I'm not trying to bicker, just making sure the employees are well-informed before they assume their jobs are safe, just by virtue of having filed an EEOC complaint. There's nothing "automatic" or guaranteed about protection from retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices. In the Eleventh Circuit, it's very likely that the EEOC will have to meet both objective and subjective tests to qualify as protected activity. Which is why I still think that people should consult an employment attorney at their earliest opportunity. Yes, they may be able to pursue the administrative charge on their own. But they will at least have been informed about their rights and protections, and potential pitfalls, in the process.

As I said, not trying to argue, just to be precise.

Where do you get your sources? The only potential pit-fall of pursuing an EEO charge in court is the possibility that, should they lose, the complainant must repay reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Protection from Retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices is a guaranteed right under Title VII, not something that can be waived. See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060623/ai_n16515403/

There is nothing objective or subjective about discrimination cases. In all cases involving discrimination of a protected class, the court will view the evidence most favorable to the non-moving party. This isn't subjective, it is a matter of law (Reeves, 530 U.S) Besides, one has to go through the Middle District before making it to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

People should file as a group when possible. There are a lot of LCA trolls out there; I'm reluctant to discuss strategy on this board. Anyone who wants to file as a group and needs more people (or who wants to join my complaints), feel free to contact @ labanon12@yahoo.com

 

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know if I have already filed a complaint and want to also add my name to an additional eeoc "group" complaint, can this be done? I saw a group of women who joined forces at The New York Times, "Sex-Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against Smith Barney"

Four women filed suit against Smith Barney on Thursday, contending that as employees they were denied business opportunities because of sex discrimination.
The women - one current employee and three former ones - said that because branch managers did not refer clients to them, they were unable to build their business and so were paid less than male colleagues.

They also claimed that they received less sales support than male colleagues, less desirable offices, and less training. After they complained, they said, male colleagues retaliated against them."The opportunities for women in Wall Street companies have sadly lagged behind those of their male counterparts," said Kelly M. Dermody, a lawyer at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, which is representing the four women.

She said the plaintiffs were seeking to have the suit certified as a class-action. If successful, thousands of current and former employees of Smith Barney, a unit of Citigroup, could be eligible to join the suit.
In response to the suit, Kimberly Atwater, a spokeswoman for Smith Barney, issued a statement saying: "These claims are entirely without merit and no number of high-profile press conferences will change that. We are proud of the strides we have made to become an employer of choice, committed to giving every employee the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential. Significant initiatives in the last several years have helped establish Smith Barney as one of the most progressive employers in the securities industry in providing a professional and respectful work environment and fair and equal opportunities for growth."
The lawsuit is the latest charging that a sexist culture persists within Wall Street firms, and it is not the first to name Smith Barney. Last summer, Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $54 million to settle a discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of about 340 women who worked in a division of its investment bank. In 1996, female employees at Smith Barney filed a discrimination suit that described fraternity-style hazing and physical harassment at one of the firm's branches. That case was settled in 1998.

 

[Anonymous]

This whole thread is a bunch of BS about nothing.

It is clear that 95% of the posts on this thread are written by one, maybe two posters who think that by keeping this minor boring inconsequential case in the spotlight they are harming Labcorp.
Not going to happen, get a life, it's obvious that you have an ax to grind. There is no real story here, let it go, move on and stop bothering everyone.