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







ATTENTION- ANYONE CURRENTLY IN FLORIDA WITH A PENDING CLAIM

If anyone else in Florida has any pending charges, have your attroneys look up the SJ from BB case, see below some of the information straight from the judges order. Especially if you have an age claim or "hostile work environment claim and or discrmination claim."

The reason that a poster has taken over this site and trying to eliminate the exposure is simply because they have great concern that others may actually get knowledge which may help them.

Cutt and Pasted straight from pacer for those employee's who think that this post is simply about angry x-employee's.

Perhaps the judge below has had her blood drawn at one of LCA stations? Or perhaps she was incorrectly billed and harrassed by LCA? That will be your next conclusion.

1 KS, the human resource director of FL, later explained that she failed to mention the
administrative specialist position to Burke because she did not know about the position. (Doc.41, Ex. 2.) A reasonable jury could choose to disregard this explanation since an e-mail shows that KS sought approval for the new position two weeks earlier. (Doc. 41, Ex. 3.)........

"PERJURY AT IT'S BEST?"

In addition, B.B. presents evidence that T.F., vice president of sales, instructed
other managers to hire good looking and "young female talent"
Lab Corp. argues that TF'S comments about “good talent” only referred to the
physical attractiveness—not the age—of prospective employees. However, other employee's testified that TF referred to both looks and age, and that other employees interpreted the “good talent” remarks to refer both to looks and age. In any event, determinations about a witness’s arguably inconsistent statements are questions of credibility that should be left to a jury.

Former Lab Corp. Manager of Business Development testified that TF told him: “You need to hire young talent” and also praised him for hiring good-looking women. Also testified that TF said he preferred that Managment not hire anyone close to retirement age.

While TF did not make these remarks specifically about BB, a jury could
reasonably find that the comments showed Farrell’s intent in making hiring and firing decisions,and could prove discriminatory intent
 






We all know that MBs to lawsuit is baseless.

And she will lose just like BB did.

When MB loses her lawsuit, the company hero will be TF in Tampa. Then that means the TN in Orlando will should at least get the Silver Medal as the company hero runner up.

We can't wait !!!!
 






We all know that MBs to lawsuit is baseless.

And she will lose just like BB did.

When MB loses her lawsuit, the company hero will be TF in Tampa. Then that means the TN in Orlando will should at least get the Silver Medal as the company hero runner up.

We can't wait !!!!


Thread hijacker and sunshine pumper.
 












I heard a rumor that a previous rep KB in Florida sued them while she was working for them. Now she is no longer working for them. Did she quit or get riffed? Considering launching a law suit against them myself and didn't know if I should do this while still working for them. Anyone have any knowledge or thoughts on this?

Also, anyone having any problems with being placed on PIP even though your numbers are better than others who aren't?
 






I heard a rumor that a previous rep KB in Florida sued them while she was working for them. Now she is no longer working for them. Did she quit or get riffed? Considering launching a law suit against them myself and didn't know if I should do this while still working for them. Anyone have any knowledge or thoughts on this?

Also, anyone having any problems with being placed on PIP even though your numbers are better than others who aren't?

I find that starting a suit and/or complaint while still working for them gives them more opportunities to retaliate against you; thereby increasing your likelihood to prevail in court.

It's human nature, use it against them.

Not so far as PIP, but definitely a written.
 






Buddy, the only people on this thread is you and me.

Actually I mostly lurk and rarely post. However, the tit for tat postings are tiring. Obviously there is a person(s) with an axe to grind. I can tell you from personal observation this is not without cause.

Another individual (you?) plays with the wording to create a distraction. I would like to see the thread back on track of updates on the legal procedings.
 






The last we reviewed the MB case, the PP attorneys were fired(acted as though they resigned) for missconduct which further delayed the case by 4 months. LCA has managed to drag this case out for over 2 years which is rare in federal court, also fairly stupid considering the exposure and costs. Discovery ended over 2 weeks ago and SJ will occur during the next several weeks, then trial. Based on the evidence shown so far, it is likely that most if not all of her claims will prevail and go to a jury trial. I wouldn't mind going to this trial as it could quite possibly do major damage for LCA for many years. When the next filings are made public for our review, we will update you.

As far as KB, don't know who that it....but filing suit while an employee can be both good and bad, depending on how serious your issues are. Based on Florida's HR, you should probably go ahead and at least file with the EEOC and consult with an attorney.
 






Actually I mostly lurk and rarely post. However, the tit for tat postings are tiring. Obviously there is a person(s) with an axe to grind. I can tell you from personal observation this is not without cause.

Another individual (you?) plays with the wording to create a distraction. I would like to see the thread back on track of updates on the legal procedings.

Agreed. I finally got around to finding my PACER login information. Here's what we have for the Middle District.


KB - Filed suit 02/01/2010. Still awaiting LCA's answer.

BB - For the people who keep lying about BB losing her case: ENDORSED ORDER that on the basis of the Magistrate Judge's notice by telephone of settlement, this cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the right of any party to re-open the action within sixty (60) days, upon good cause shown, or to submit a stipulated form of final judgment. The Clerk is directed to close the case, cancel the scheduled trial, and terminate all pending motions. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 10/22/2009

MB - Still firing off at each other. Tit for tat tactics. LabCorp moved to seal the evidentiary hearing, so there isn't any access to what transpired. Trial is set for May, not sure when. The attorney for Parker Poe did withdraw as counsel; the judge stated that a few comments made by the firm were "careless". This is going to be very interesting.
 






Actually I mostly lurk and rarely post. However, the tit for tat postings are tiring. Obviously there is a person(s) with an axe to grind. I can tell you from personal observation this is not without cause.

Another individual (you?) plays with the wording to create a distraction. I would like to see the thread back on track of updates on the legal procedings.

Ok, here it is, back on track:

Cut and Pasted straight from pacer so employee's will know the truth about this malicious and false claim made by a angry x-employee.

The judge below knows her stuff and has all but vindicated LCA.

1 KS, the human resource director of FL, did not mention the administrative specialist position to Burke because she did not know about the position. (Doc.21, Ex. 3.) A reasonable jury would have to acknowledge this to be the truth since there was no documentation to prove otherwise. (Doc. 21, Ex. 3.)........

"THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM AT IT'S BEST!!!"

In addition, B.B. presents evidence that T.F., vice president of sales, instructed
other managers to hire only the most qualified indiviuals regardless of gender, appearance or ethnic background. We only want the best said TF, I don't care about physical attractiveness—or the age—of prospective employees. Employee's testified that TF never referred to looks or age, and that other employees interpreted the “good talent” remarks to refer to "as the best possible candidate". In any event, determinations about a witness’s solid testimony should be left to a jury.

Former Lab Corp. Manager of Business Development testified that TF told him: “You need to hire the very best” and also praised him for meeting affirmative action quotas. Also testified that TF said he wanted the best talent so that they could replace him should he get promoted.

The Judge determined that TF never made any derogatory statements about BB, and that a jury could reasonably find Farrell was intent in making the best possible decisions for Labcorp. The Judge went as far as to consider holding BB in contempt.

So now you know the truth.
 






Ok, here it is, back on track:

Cut and Pasted straight from pacer so employee's will know the truth about this malicious and false claim made by a angry x-employee.

The judge below knows her stuff and has all but vindicated LCA.

1 KS, the human resource director of FL, did not mention the administrative specialist position to Burke because she did not know about the position. (Doc.21, Ex. 3.) A reasonable jury would have to acknowledge this to be the truth since there was no documentation to prove otherwise. (Doc. 21, Ex. 3.)........

"THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM AT IT'S BEST!!!"

In addition, B.B. presents evidence that T.F., vice president of sales, instructed
other managers to hire only the most qualified indiviuals regardless of gender, appearance or ethnic background. We only want the best said TF, I don't care about physical attractiveness—or the age—of prospective employees. Employee's testified that TF never referred to looks or age, and that other employees interpreted the “good talent” remarks to refer to "as the best possible candidate". In any event, determinations about a witness’s solid testimony should be left to a jury.

Former Lab Corp. Manager of Business Development testified that TF told him: “You need to hire the very best” and also praised him for meeting affirmative action quotas. Also testified that TF said he wanted the best talent so that they could replace him should he get promoted.

The Judge determined that TF never made any derogatory statements about BB, and that a jury could reasonably find Farrell was intent in making the best possible decisions for Labcorp. The Judge went as far as to consider holding BB in contempt.

So now you know the truth.

Will you stop lying? Sheesh, we all have access to these documents. You don't even have the document numbers right. KS was substituted for her last name.


1 KS, the human resource director, later explained that she failed to mention the
administrative specialist position to Burke because she did not know about the position. (Doc.
41, Ex. 2.) A reasonable jury could choose to disregard this explanation since an e-mail shows
that KS sought approval for the new position two weeks earlier. (Doc. 41, Ex. 3.)

5 Because of conflicting evidence in the record, a genuine issue of material fact exists
about what type of job skills Lab Corp. sought for the post and what type of customer service
experience BB had.

7 Lab Corp. argues that TF comments about “good talent” only referred to the
physical attractiveness—not the age—of prospective employees. However, JS testified
that TF referred to both looks and age, and that JS interpreted the “good talent”
remarks to refer both to looks and age. In any event, determinations about a witness’s arguably
inconsistent statements are questions of credibility that should be left to a jury.

Lab Corp. Human Resource Division Director KS stated that the
“categories provide no information about the specific responsibilities of a position.” The Court
cannot place much weight on KS's conclusory statement, and it recognizes that a jury
could reasonably choose not to believe KS's testimony. On its face, the assertion that a job
title contains no information about a person’s job makes little sense. A jury could reasonably
believe that the two jobs shared the same title because they were, in fact, similar.
 






Ok, here it is, back on track:

Cut and Pasted straight from pacer so employee's will know the truth about this malicious and false claim made by a angry x-employee.

The judge below knows her stuff and has all but vindicated LCA.

1 KS, the human resource director of FL, did not mention the administrative specialist position to Burke because she did not know about the position. (Doc.21, Ex. 3.) A reasonable jury would have to acknowledge this to be the truth since there was no documentation to prove otherwise. (Doc. 21, Ex. 3.)........

"THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM AT IT'S BEST!!!"

In addition, B.B. presents evidence that T.F., vice president of sales, instructed
other managers to hire only the most qualified indiviuals regardless of gender, appearance or ethnic background. We only want the best said TF, I don't care about physical attractiveness—or the age—of prospective employees. Employee's testified that TF never referred to looks or age, and that other employees interpreted the “good talent” remarks to refer to "as the best possible candidate". In any event, determinations about a witness’s solid testimony should be left to a jury.

Former Lab Corp. Manager of Business Development testified that TF told him: “You need to hire the very best” and also praised him for meeting affirmative action quotas. Also testified that TF said he wanted the best talent so that they could replace him should he get promoted.

The Judge determined that TF never made any derogatory statements about BB, and that a jury could reasonably find Farrell was intent in making the best possible decisions for Labcorp. The Judge went as far as to consider holding BB in contempt.

So now you know the truth.



Wow! Still playing games! Must be another slow day in HR.
 






Cut and Pasted straight from pacer for those employee's who think that this post is simply about angry x-employee's. .....................................................................

Perhaps the judge below has had her blood drawn at one of LCA stations? Or perhaps she was incorrectly billed and harrassed by LCA? That will be your next conclusion.

1 KS, the human resource director of FL, later explained that she failed to mention the
administrative specialist position to Burke because she did not know about the position. (Doc.41, Ex. 2.) A reasonable jury could choose to disregard this explanation since an e-mail shows that KS sought approval for the new position two weeks earlier. (Doc. 41, Ex. 3.)........

"PERJURY AT IT'S BEST?"

In addition, B.B. presents evidence that T.F., vice president of sales, instructed
other managers to hire good looking and "young female talent"
Lab Corp. argues that TF'S comments about “good talent” only referred to the
physical attractiveness—not the age—of prospective employees. However, other employee's testified that TF referred to both looks and age, and that other employees interpreted the “good talent” remarks to refer both to looks and age. In any event, determinations about a witness’s arguably inconsistent statements are questions of credibility that should be left to a jury.

Former Lab Corp. Manager of Business Development testified that TF told him: “You need to hire young talent” and also praised him for hiring good-looking women. Also testified that TF said he preferred that Managment not hire anyone close to retirement age.

While TF did not make these remarks specifically about BB, a jury could
reasonably find that the comments showed Farrell’s intent in making hiring and firing decisions,and could prove discriminatory intent
 






The last post was very professional and acurate...

Take this comment from someone that has a pacer account and knows how to read the documents submitted in BB's case...

It appears tha LabCorp attorneys are performing "damage control" by monitoring these postings...

Someday soon the truth about inept management in FL will be heard in court...

I suggest that anyone that is really interested should get a PACER account and download the documents for $.08 per page...

Enjoy...
 






According to pacer, the case of MB will go to trial in September vs. May.......looks as though the other attorneys were fired and the new firm had some catching up to do. LCA did request certain aspects be kept "under seal." There have been many rumors that employee's were asked to lie by the attorneys in this case. Seems as though employee's shouldn't have to lie if the company was being honest to begin with?

KB did file suit, and there are three more in the works. Once these are made public, we will let everyone know in case your considering legal action yourself.
 






Cut and Pasted straight from pacer so employee's will know the truth about this malicious and false claim made by a angry x-employee.

The judge below knows her stuff and has all but vindicated LCA.

1 KS, the human resource director of FL, did not mention the administrative specialist position to Burke because she did not know about the position. (Doc.21, Ex. 3.) A reasonable jury would have to acknowledge this to be the truth since there was no documentation to prove otherwise. (Doc. 21, Ex. 3.)........

"THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM AT IT'S BEST!!!"

In addition, B.B. presents evidence that T.F., vice president of sales, instructed
other managers to hire only the most qualified indiviuals regardless of gender, appearance or ethnic background. We only want the best said TF, I don't care about physical attractiveness—or the age—of prospective employees. Employee's testified that TF never referred to looks or age, and that other employees interpreted the “good talent” remarks to refer to "as the best possible candidate". In any event, determinations about a witness’s solid testimony should be left to a jury.

Former Lab Corp. Manager of Business Development testified that TF told him: “You need to hire the very best” and also praised him for meeting affirmative action quotas. Also testified that TF said he wanted the best talent so that they could replace him should he get promoted.

The Judge determined that TF never made any derogatory statements about BB, and that a jury could reasonably find Farrell was intent in making the best possible decisions for Labcorp. The Judge went as far as to consider holding BB in contempt.

So now you know the truth.
 






The last post was very professional and acurate...

Take this comment from someone that has a pacer account and is a know it all on how to read the documents submitted in BB's case...

It appears tha LabCorp attorneys will be performing along with the Three Tenors who are monitoring these postings...

Someday soon the truth about my basketball abilities will be seen on the court...

I suggest that anyone that is really interested should get a PACER account and download the documents for $1.25 per page...

Enjoy...
 






According to my fortune cookie, the case of MB will go to trial in September vs. May.......looks as though the other attorneys quit and the new firm had some catching up to do. LCA did request certain aspects be made public. There have been many unfounded rumors started by me that employee's were asked to lie by the attorneys in this case. Seems as though I would not have to make this stuff up if the company was just dishonest to begin with.

KB did buy a new suit at Target, and might buy three more. Once these are seen in public, everyone will want to buy one even yourself.
 






Cut and Pasted straight from pacer for those employee's who think that this post is simply about angry x-employee's. .................................................. ...................

Perhaps the judge below has had her blood drawn at one of LCA stations? Or perhaps she was incorrectly billed and harrassed by LCA? That will be your next conclusion.

1 KS, the human resource director of FL, later explained that she failed to mention the
administrative specialist position to Burke because she did not know about the position. (Doc.41, Ex. 2.) A reasonable jury could choose to disregard this explanation since an e-mail shows that KS sought approval for the new position two weeks earlier. (Doc. 41, Ex. 3.)........

"PERJURY AT IT'S BEST?"

In addition, B.B. presents evidence that T.F., vice president of sales, instructed
other managers to hire good looking and "young female talent"
Lab Corp. argues that TF'S comments about “good talent” only referred to the
physical attractiveness—not the age—of prospective employees. However, other employee's testified that TF referred to both looks and age, and that other employees interpreted the “good talent” remarks to refer both to looks and age. In any event, determinations about a witness’s arguably inconsistent statements are questions of credibility that should be left to a jury.

Former Lab Corp. Manager of Business Development testified that TF told him: “You need to hire young talent” and also praised him for hiring good-looking women. Also testified that TF said he preferred that Managment not hire anyone close to retirement age.

While TF did not make these remarks specifically about BB, a jury could
reasonably find that the comments showed Farrell’s intent in making hiring and firing decisions,and could prove discriminatory intent