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

Quote
Anonymous said:
To the poster above, send your eeoc complaint to the labor agency mentioned above so they can be aware of it. Don't assume they are already aware of it. Also, look up the BB case for your attorney as KS ( Director HR Florida) committed "perjury" in that lawsuit. That should be something that your attorney is made aware of.

Regarding the PIP situation, that is very common under the current sales director and hr director. They do NOT apply the policy equally. You should keep the rankings, document your concerns and file an eeoc complaint and see an attorney.

You would think that after all of these issues in Florida, DK the company CEO would fire whoever the labor attorney at corporate is that is overseeing these idiots.
Click to expand...

Rankings have nothing to do with being PIP'ed. If you are an SME, you could be ranked high based on the work of your KAE. Be able to prove that your current tranking is based on new business and not upsell by the KAE. If you are a KAE, best be able to show that your ranking is based on upsell and not new buisiness put in your book by your SME. What say you?
 






I can understand the above post, however like many of labcorp's policies....they are selectively enforced when labcorp wants to get rid of someone. I do not see in any policy regarding PIP that one must "Prove" that they ( KAE or SME) increased the territory and not the sme and or KAE. That simply becomes he said/she said and makes for the need of legal interpretation........especially if you are on PIP and have recently complained to HR about any protected activity.

For example, In Florida during 2007 LCA fired GZ after "selectively" placing her on PIP. She filed an eeoc complaint and based on an investigation by the EEOC they found that the current Mgr's in Florida ( TN specific) through KS, TF are and have been allowed to selectively place people on PIP, whether others are doing worse or not. It was by "no coincidence" that GZ happened to be a protected class.

Others currently experiencing the same level of treatment, please come forward.
 






Anonymous said:
I can understand the above post, however like many of labcorp's policies....they are selectively enforced when labcorp wants to get rid of someone. I do not see in any policy regarding PIP that one must "Prove" that they ( KAE or SME) increased the territory and not the sme and or KAE. That simply becomes he said/she said and makes for the need of legal interpretation........especially if you are on PIP and have recently complained to HR about any protected activity.

For example, In Florida during 2007 LCA fired GZ after "selectively" placing her on PIP. She filed an eeoc complaint and based on an investigation by the EEOC they found that the current Mgr's in Florida ( TN specific) through KS, TF are and have been allowed to selectively place people on PIP, whether others are doing worse or not. It was by "no coincidence" that GZ happened to be a protected class.

Others currently experiencing the same level of treatment, please come forward.
Click to expand...

My point is this: If you are an SME, you can rank high if your KAE has upsold his/her client.. and you have brought in NO new business.. understand? if you have brought in nothing .. then for sure you can be put on a PIP.. if you are a KAE and have NOT upsold any of your current clients, and your SME has simply added to your revenue base.. ( which brings your ranking up) you can be put on a PIP for not doing your job.. Do you understand this? It is not hard.. some, not all, of the high ranking SME's in the country are there due to thier KAE and visa versa..or for that matter a managed care contract.... so, if you have been put on a PIP and plan to push back, you better be sure the rankings are due to your hard work.not someone elses. Being put on a PIP and the ranking have nothing to do with each other..He said / she said.. are you kidding... you call in new business every month.. does it actually come in? thats the proof my friend... it is tracked.. sounds like you do not know much about your own company's sales performance managemant plan.
 






I agree with you on the PIP stuff. And yes, I know the plan well enough to know it is designed and changed every year with the intent to screw those on variable compensation plans. I also know that by the time we get the numbers, which is several months "too late" to monitor true current performance that you can't trust the #'s. There are 2 sets of books in this company.

I wonder if they have 2 sets of books that they show to "wall street" and the shareholders?
 






Anonymous said:
I agree with you on the PIP stuff. And yes, I know the plan well enough to know it is designed and changed every year with the intent to screw those on variable compensation plans. I also know that by the time we get the numbers, which is several months "too late" to monitor true current performance that you can't trust the #'s. There are 2 sets of books in this company.

I wonder if they have 2 sets of books that they show to "wall street" and the shareholders?
Click to expand...

Well, I was reading the 3rd quarter call transcript and I think they don't divulge all the information to the shareholders. When asked, they declined to say which division lost the "corrections" contract and they also did decline to say which competitor snapped up the contract. Being in Ops, it was obviously in FL. As to the competitor, I'm not sure - though I thought it was Quest?

So yeah - often different stories.
 






Anonymous said:
I agree with you on the PIP stuff. And yes, I know the plan well enough to know it is designed and changed every year with the intent to screw those on variable compensation plans. I also know that by the time we get the numbers, which is several months "too late" to monitor true current performance that you can't trust the #'s. There are 2 sets of books in this company.

I wonder if they have 2 sets of books that they show to "wall street" and the shareholders?
Click to expand...

What you have just stated in regard to two sets of books is a very bold statement. If what you said is true, many people will be facing jail time and millions in fines. Be very careful in what you say, unless you can prove it. You are talking felonies, jail time, firing, shareholder lawsuits, class action suits, etc.I am not an attorney, but a person in the lab business for 20+ years. You get the Feds involved-OIG, SEC, etc. and you are talking about problems. Remember the 90's with NHL-ferritin, etc.? If you do not, check on the history and it is not pretty. By the way, in my opinion, the thief's got what they deserved. '
 






Anonymous said:
What you have just stated in regard to two sets of books is a very bold statement. If what you said is true, many people will be facing jail time and millions in fines. Be very careful in what you say, unless you can prove it. You are talking felonies, jail time, firing, shareholder lawsuits, class action suits, etc.I am not an attorney, but a person in the lab business for 20+ years. You get the Feds involved-OIG, SEC, etc. and you are talking about problems. Remember the 90's with NHL-ferritin, etc.? If you do not, check on the history and it is not pretty. By the way, in my opinion, the thief's got what they deserved. '
Click to expand...

Thank you KS. Your input is always appreciated.
 






Anonymous said:
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
Click to expand...

I get my sources from case law and from 15 years of practicing employment law. You don't litigate much, do you? There are NO absolutes in discrimination law.
 






Here's a sample quoted directly from an 11th Circuit case in 2005, demonstrating that not all EEOC complaints are considered to be protected activity, for purposes of a retaliation claim. There are many, many more cases stating the same thing:

Title VII protects individuals who have filed formal EEOC complaints and individuals who have filed informal complaints internally to their supervisors. Shannon v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 292 F.3d 712, 716 n. 2 (11th Cir.2002). To prove retaliation under Title VII, however, a plaintiff must demonstrate, inter alia, that she has engaged in a protected activity. Gupta, 212 F.3d at 587. To demonstrate that she participated in a protected activity, “a plaintiff must show that she had a good faith, reasonable belief that the employer was engaged in unlawful employment practices.” Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir.2002) (quotation omitted). In that regard, a plaintiff must demonstrate a subjective belief that her employer was engaged in unlawful employment practices and that her “belief was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and record presented.” Id. at 1312 (emphasis in original).
 






OFCCP would like to hear from those who have been discriminated against based on a protected characteristic. A formal recommendation has been made for an investigation of LCA Florida. Those who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty, write:

US Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program
Charles E Bennett Federal Building
400 West Bay Street
Room 939
Jacksonville, Florida 32202

or call:

(904) 351-0551

Simply reference LCA and they'll know where to proceed. All correspondence is confidential. There is a Case Number and more direct phone numbers; if there is enough interest, we'll see how best to disclose that information.
 






I called and yes, they are doing an investigation. Anyone who has a legitimate issue with KS or the current Mgmt in Florida can send their complaints to the address below and simply reference "LabCorp Investigation" on your complaint. They are going to have the regional office conduct the investigation. The more that call and send in information, the better. If you have filed an eeoc complaint and or law suit against them, send a copy of your complaint and or eeoc filing/case # to this address.

This also pertains to existing employee's who have tried getting help unsuccessfully from HR or your Managers. Stand up and make a difference this year!

Anyone who thinks they have unfairly been placed on PIP by your manager, consider filing a eeoc charge and sending this information to the below. Their may be legitimate concerns that people are being "selectively" placed on PIP when others are simply "overlooked." The EEOC has recently found this to be the case in another current complaint in Florida. Their is interest in looking at this issue on a more global perspective.


US Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program
Charles E Bennett Federal Building
400 West Bay Street
Room 939
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
 






If you are testifying in a federal case and fear "retaliation" by LabCorp, you should be aware that the law actually protects anyone who is a key witness in a federal trial. You should make sure that you make your fears clear on record as the labcorp attorneys along with the outside attorneys will attempt to intimidate you. This is considering "tampering" with a witness and is against the code of ethics which attorneys must adhere to. Consider turning the attorney who has intimidated you into the bar immediately! Your only option is to tell the truth. Also, you should consider hiring your own legal representation so that you have your concerns as a matter of record should labcorp try and terminate your employment after the trial for telling the truth. Always remember that these outside attorneys are looking out for themselves and are looking for ways to continue with their client for years to come, even if it means your the next victim because you didn't understand your rights under the law!
 






LCA HR florida is probably one of the worst in the country. The previous HR Director JG was actually very good and would have never allowed these types of occurences. Unfort he promoted someone with no HR experience into his position and then came along Dictator BN who empowered his people to make decisions, albeit illegal ones. DS would have never allowed the type of behavior that has occurred these past several years since his departure. Unfort the company also has some corrupt attorneys at the helm which further complicates matters.

The BB case should be one that causes some big changes for those over 50 people at LCA about to be walked out the door. Unless she takes it all the way and allows the jury to punish LCA for their reckless behaviors, they will more than likely continue. They have a history of incredibly arrogant behavior!
 






If you are testifying in a federal case and fear "retaliation" by LabCorp, you should be aware that the law actually protects anyone who is a key witness in a federal trial. You should make sure that you make your fears clear on record as the labcorp attorneys along with the outside attorneys will attempt to intimidate you. This is considering "tampering" with a witness and is against the code of ethics which attorneys must adhere to. Consider turning the attorney who has intimidated you into the bar immediately! Your only option is to tell the truth. Also, you should consider hiring your own legal representation so that you have your concerns as a matter of record should labcorp try and terminate your employment after the trial for telling the truth. Always remember that these outside attorneys are looking out for themselves and are looking for ways to continue with their client for years to come, even if it means your the next victim because you didn't understand your rights under the law!
 






The best option when you are experiencing sexual harrassment, age discrmination or any coverable title V11 claim is to go to the local eeoc office in your area and fill out an eeoc record. This protects your position in the company and enforces some sort of a formal investigation to be done.
 












Here's a sample quoted directly from an 11th Circuit case in 2005, demonstrating that not all EEOC complaints are considered to be protected activity, for purposes of a retaliation claim. There are many, many more cases stating the same thing:

Title VII protects individuals who have filed formal EEOC complaints and individuals who have filed informal complaints internally to their supervisors. Shannon v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 292 F.3d 712, 716 n. 2 (11th Cir.2002). To prove retaliation under Title VII, however, a plaintiff must demonstrate, inter alia, that she has engaged in a protected activity. Gupta, 212 F.3d at 587. To demonstrate that she participated in a protected activity, “a plaintiff must show that she had a good faith, reasonable belief that the employer was engaged in unlawful employment practices.” Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307, 1311 (11th Cir.2002) (quotation omitted). In that regard, a plaintiff must demonstrate a subjective belief that her employer was engaged in unlawful employment practices and that her “belief was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and record presented.” Id. at 1312 (emphasis in original).
 






If you are testifying in a federal case and fear "retaliation" by LabCorp, you should be aware that the law actually protects anyone who is a key witness in a federal trial. You should make sure that you make your fears clear on record as the labcorp attorneys along with the outside attorneys will attempt to intimidate you. This is considering "tampering" with a witness and is against the code of ethics which attorneys must adhere to. Consider turning the attorney who has intimidated you into the bar immediately! Your only option is to tell the truth. Also, you should consider hiring your own legal representation so that you have your concerns as a matter of record should labcorp try and terminate your employment after the trial for telling the truth. Always remember that these outside attorneys are looking out for themselves and are looking for ways to continue with their client for years to come, even if it means your the next victim because you didn't understand your rights under the law!
 












OFCCP would like to hear from those who have been discriminated against based on a protected characteristic. A formal recommendation has been made for an investigation of LCA Florida. Those who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty, write:

US Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program
Charles E Bennett Federal Building
400 West Bay Street
Room 939
Jacksonville, Florida 32202

or call:

(904) 351-0551

Simply reference LCA and they'll know where to proceed. All correspondence is confidential. There is a Case Number and more direct phone numbers; if there is enough interest, we'll see how best to disclose that information.
 






Top Bottom
Back
Quote