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

Quote
Anonymous said:
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
Click to expand...

....and this news just in:

TF tried Grecian Formula 16, but the bottle melted...........

KS went on Nutri System, but still gained 11 pounds.....

TN - well, there is not enogh Valtrex in the whole world to help him.....
 






Look, there are a number of women under TF and TN that have made formal complaints of a "hostile work environment" and discrimination....only to fall on deaf ears and subsequently placed on PIP or fired. Even corporate legal got involved and NOTHING was ever done! This is a perfect opportunity for the news to come in and do a story.

We are all routing for MB because she stands for all of the other women here continuing to get screwed by these idiots!
 






Ladies, lets take a stand against these men, start taking advantage of them and climb this ladder. I'll give up my pussie for some cash...its the oldest profession in the world. Plus I like it!!
 












Anonymous said:
....and this news just in:

TF tried Grecian Formula 16, but the bottle melted...........

KS went on Nutri System, but still gained 11 pounds.....

TN - well, there is not enogh Valtrex in the whole world to help him.....
Click to expand...

Nutri System is expensive, but hey, I'm sure she's cracking 80-100k. I wish she would do us all a favor and choke on one of the meals.
 


















OFCCP would like to hear from those who have been discriminated against based on a protected characteristic. (personal info removed) 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

SUBJECT: LABCORP CONDUCT IN FLORIDA.

All correspondence is confidential
 






Anonymous said:
OFCCP would like to hear from those who have been discriminated against based on a protected characteristic. (personal info removed) 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

SUBJECT: LABCORP CONDUCT IN FLORIDA.

All correspondence is confidential
Click to expand...

I waz caled a niger by mb, does dat mean I be discriminatez?
 






I worked for KS for several years. She is one of the most inept HR Managers I have ever worked for. She is there to "cover up" for people like TF,TN and the likes. She is like a jellyfish, no backbone and her testimony in the BB case is a complete sham.
 


















Anonymous said:
I waz caled a niger by mb, does dat mean I be discriminatez?
Click to expand...

Good Comments JM. Just like you to throw the race card into this and stir up more problems. We all know you lower than a snakes belly (your words). So why dont you just do the right thing and focus on what you do best and that is hanging out wit your boyfriends. We all know who they are.
 












If any non labcorp attorney reads this, if I file an internal LCA discrimination complaint and they do no investigation, what should my next step be? I feel as if some of the people mentioned within this thread are not responding to my legitimate concerns. Also, am I allowed to put a web cam in my office and tape some of my concerns against my boss? I am in Florida in case the laws are different considering the state.
 






Anonymous said:
If any non labcorp attorney reads this, if I file an internal LCA discrimination complaint and they do no investigation, what should my next step be? I feel as if some of the people mentioned within this thread are not responding to my legitimate concerns. Also, am I allowed to put a web cam in my office and tape some of my concerns against my boss? I am in Florida in case the laws are different considering the state.
Click to expand...

I am not an attorney, but most of my knowledge and experience is in Labor and Industrial Relations. I've pretty much made it known how much I despise KS and Florida HR in general. I'll expound on that later. For now, based on what you've said, here is the process:

1) Make sure your complaint was in writing. If it was verbal, follow up with an e-mail stating "Per our conversation". Begin to document every single thing. If you fart, document it.

2) Per the Open Communication's Policy, under Steps III and IV in your employee manual, you have the right - as an employee - to request the general findings of the "investigation". I can assure you, I know the two head individuals in Florida HR. They didn't do an investigation. I hardly find a phone call an "investigation". Still, call them out on it.

3) This 3rd step depends on how secure you feel about the organization retaliating against you. I don't confine that only to termination. I mean, for promotions, work environment, training, or any aspect of employment by which you would have an adverse effect.

If any of the above has happened to you and/or you wish to file the discrimination complaint, I would contact The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs within the Department of Labor. Here is the link to file a complaint (print out and call/fax to them):

http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/pdf/pdfstart.htm

Once that is complete, OFCCP will refer your individual case to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) while still keeping a tally, as they look for systemic issues. Trust me, those numbers are going up and I have a feeling that an audit is coming. EEO will then follow-up with you and its self-explanatory from then on.

There is a lot of good material on how to file, how to approach Florida HR, the different lawsuits in play. Take some time and browse through this thread. There is some good stuff.

Anything else, let me know.
 






This is very helpfull, thank you! Regarding my question about a web cam and perhaps tape recording some converations. Do you know if this would be able to be used in a federal court against them? I have had several conversations and meetings with HR and you are correct, they don't care. LF in Orlando is a JOKE, like a clone of KS. She tells us she has passed on the information to KS, though nothing is ever done. I say "us" because there are multiple people and issues......all under the same person. We also think his boss TF is encouraging the behavior.

So, back to my question about tape recording conversations at HR and putting in web cams in the office? There are these little tape recording lawyer pens which I bought so they will have no idea.
 






Anonymous said:
r.

So, back to my question about tape recording conversations at HR and putting in web cams in the office? There are these little tape recording lawyer pens which I bought so they will have no idea.
Click to expand...

Business meetings have been held to have no reasonable expectation of privacy in Florida. Thus they can be recorded without violating the Interception of Communications Act.

"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 said:
Business meetings have been held to have no reasonable expectation of privacy in Florida. Thus they can be recorded without violating the Interception of Communications Act.

"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)
Click to expand...


Good info. To supplement that:

Regarding statute that prohibits interception and disclosure of oral communications, society is willing to recognize as reasonable an expectation of privacy in conversations conducted in a private home, but this recognition does not necessarily extend to conversations conducted in a business office where the intent of the speaker does not justify such an expectation. West's F.S.A. §§ 934.02(2), 934.03.

If you are going to record, stick to conversations pertaining to you and/or anything unethical or illegal. There is a strong public policy exception to the Florida Security in Communications Act.
 






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.
 






Top Bottom
Back
Quote