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

Quote
Anonymous said:
I read the legals this whole thing is a bunch of BS.

For those of you interested here is the scoop:

MB claims she was sexually harrassed by two of the Managers. However it's just her word aganist theirs. She thinks by dragging this out and having her "friends" post propaganda like we have seen on this thread that she will wear down Labcorp and get a big settlement.
She's pointing fingers at everyone but at the end of the day she has nothing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info.
Why are these lawsuits allowed to be filed. She should be held responsible for all costs.
 






Anonymous said:
I read the legals this whole thing is a bunch of BS.

For those of you interested here is the scoop:

MB claims she was sexually harrassed by two of the Managers. However it's just her word aganist theirs. She thinks by dragging this out and having her "friends" post propaganda like we have seen on this thread that she will wear down Labcorp and get a big settlement.
She's pointing fingers at everyone but at the end of the day she has nothing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update.

Why are suits like this allowed to be filed? She should be responsible for Labcorps legal costs.
 






Anonymous said:
Thanks for the update.

Why are suits like this allowed to be filed? She should be responsible for Labcorps legal costs.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's false. People with experience and knowledge of employment law should comment on factual claims, not those with established prejudice or bias for one side or the other. If you indeed read the case file, LCA has asked for extensions three times, two of which were granted entirely and one in part. MB has not. Who's dragging the case? Evidence speaks for itself. An average EEO case takes 3-5 years for full litigation including appellate rulings.

As far as sexual harassment, there is no mention of such a claim in the complaint. There are three different claims for relief in the complaint, all with different implications: Gender Discrimination under EEO, Whistleblower Protection under Florida Civil Rights Act, and Failure to Pay Required Benefits; which is a civil matter stemming from LCA's acquisition of Dynacare under the Predecessor/Successor rule. There are other minor claims, but the above highlights the major issues.

In answer to the question, suits like these go forward because uneducated and incompetent individuals are unable or unwilling to address employment-related issues as they arise. Instead, they allow feelings to fester, whether they are justified or not, and then explode on-stage in the form of lawsuits. Human Resources, in most organizations I have consulted for, plays a prominent role in keeping companies out of litigation. They are experts in the field of Labor Management and are usually empowered with the ability to place the calm hand on the shoulders of management and employees. LCA's Human Resources Policy follows a unitary theory of management, with virtually no oversight by HR, Corporate, or internal departments (Operations, Sales, etc).

Favorable rulings for employees who have been slighted by their employers are going to be the norm, not the exception. ADR, Mediation, and Arbitration are less costly and more private. They are becoming the de-facto preference for employment-related disputes.

This case hasn't even proceeded to Summary Judgement yet. Based strictly on the interpretation of disclosed facts in the case file, it is doubtful LCA will prevail on a summary judgement motion. Most companies settle when SJ's are denied as not much can be done to prevent a jury trial afterward. Until then, it's a tug of war.
 






Anonymous said:
Actually, that's false. People with experience and knowledge of employment law should comment on factual claims, not those with established prejudice or bias for one side or the other. If you indeed read the case file, LCA has asked for extensions three times, two of which were granted entirely and one in part. MB has not. Who's dragging the case? Evidence speaks for itself. An average EEO case takes 3-5 years for full litigation including appellate rulings.

As far as sexual harassment, there is no mention of such a claim in the complaint. There are three different claims for relief in the complaint, all with different implications: Gender Discrimination under EEO, Whistleblower Protection under Florida Civil Rights Act, and Failure to Pay Required Benefits; which is a civil matter stemming from LCA's acquisition of Dynacare under the Predecessor/Successor rule. There are other minor claims, but the above highlights the major issues.

In answer to the question, suits like these go forward because uneducated and incompetent individuals are unable or unwilling to address employment-related issues as they arise. Instead, they allow feelings to fester, whether they are justified or not, and then explode on-stage in the form of lawsuits. Human Resources, in most organizations I have consulted for, plays a prominent role in keeping companies out of litigation. They are experts in the field of Labor Management and are usually empowered with the ability to place the calm hand on the shoulders of management and employees. LCA's Human Resources Policy follows a unitary theory of management, with virtually no oversight by HR, Corporate, or internal departments (Operations, Sales, etc).

Favorable rulings for employees who have been slighted by their employers are going to be the norm, not the exception. ADR, Mediation, and Arbitration are less costly and more private. They are becoming the de-facto preference for employment-related disputes.

This case hasn't even proceeded to Summary Judgement yet. Based strictly on the interpretation of disclosed facts in the case file, it is doubtful LCA will prevail on a summary judgement motion. Most companies settle when SJ's are denied as not much can be done to prevent a jury trial afterward. Until then, it's a tug of war.
Click to expand...

Thank you for a very articulate and honest evaluation of the situation. What a breath of fresh air!
 
























There was also a claim of retaliation in the filings which would make sense. Look who was running Florida.

Based on the facts presented in this case and the evidence put forth for the court in the filings, this case looks like it will go down in history and quite possibly make case law after it's over. There are over 130 filings and most of the recent rulings all favor the plantiff! Looks like the rope that the judge extended to labcorp is starting to tighten around there neck!

Looks like the attorneys could all be sanctioned on the lca side. I would bet that this lawsuit creates a pandora's window and many more suits will be filed as a result of it. Not only does it look like the attorneys may be suing one another but employee witnesses may have a case of their own as do several possible clients.
 






Anonymous said:
Why did it take 83 posts for you to finally share what was going on? I knew I would have to post my own made up senerio for you to come clean. Even had to answer it twice.
Click to expand...

Paranoid people tend to form conclusions that are neither prudent nor substantiated. You obviously have this belief that only one person is posting in this thread. Rest assured that is not the case.

For the record, there is really nothing substantive to share. All information stated in this thread is a matter of public record, easily accessible via the internet or other government sources. All you seem to muster, in your infinite wisdom, are one-liners and unfounded accusations that culminate into two sentences.

I openly discuss this topic because I believe in the merits of the plaintiff's case. Most certainly not to entertain your puerile attempts at creating disruption.

I have my Masters, do you?

Show a little maturity.
 






Anonymous said:
Paranoid people tend to form conclusions that are neither prudent nor substantiated. You obviously have this belief that only one person is posting in this thread. Rest assured that is not the case.

For the record, there is really nothing substantive to share. All information stated in this thread is a matter of public record, easily accessible via the internet or other government sources. All you seem to muster, in your infinite wisdom, are one-liners and unfounded accusations that culminate into two sentences.

I openly discuss this topic because I believe in the merits of the plaintiff's case. Most certainly not to entertain your puerile attempts at creating disruption.

I have my Masters, do you?

Show a little maturity.
Click to expand...

You are THE FREAKIN' MAN !!!! OR WOMAN !!!!

Great posts !!!!
 






if you read the filing on the pacer site that the plantiff's attorneys wrote ( think its # 131) it's quite clear that the merrits in her case are not only based on factual evidence but that the lca attorneys are being quite dishonest and are being exposed at every level. It's never the bad act or lie that gets someone in trouble, but how one covers up there lies with more of them.

This case will create a great case law on what happens to companies like labcorp who have no hr measures in place and obviouslly no proper esi management in place. If they are this bad to their top performing employee's, how are they handling their patients and clients?
 






Anonymous said:
Paranoid people tend to form conclusions that are neither prudent nor substantiated. You obviously have this belief that only one person is posting in this thread. Rest assured that is not the case.

For the record, there is really nothing substantive to share. All information stated in this thread is a matter of public record, easily accessible via the internet or other government sources. All you seem to muster, in your infinite wisdom, are one-liners and unfounded accusations that culminate into two sentences.

I openly discuss this topic because I believe in the merits of the plaintiff's case. Most certainly not to entertain your puerile attempts at creating disruption.

I have my Masters, do you?

Show a little maturity.
Click to expand...

I got my Masters when they meant something.
 






Anonymous said:
if you read the filing on the pacer site that the plantiff's attorneys wrote ( think its # 131) it's quite clear that the merrits in her case are not only based on factual evidence but that the lca attorneys are being quite dishonest and are being exposed at every level. It's never the bad act or lie that gets someone in trouble, but how one covers up there lies with more of them.

This case will create a great case law on what happens to companies like labcorp who have no hr measures in place and obviouslly no proper esi management in place. If they are this bad to their top performing employee's, how are they handling their patients and clients?
Click to expand...

Has anybody read BB's case? Great case of perjury in there by the HR director in Florida.
 






Anonymous said:
Has anybody read BB's case? Great case of perjury in there by the HR director in Florida.
Click to expand...

Being aware of the HR Director through indirect association, I can make a fair assessment that she lacks certifiable experience in the area of labor relations. Having an SPHR does not make you an expert on the rules and regulations that govern employment-related concerns. Most professionally-organized Human Resources departments with other Fortune 500 companies have Human Resource personnel who specialize in certain areas. One will deal strictly with Employment Classification and Hiring, one with Compensation and Benefits, and one with Employee Relations.

Had this HR Director been competent enough to read the fine print and have an adequate understanding of the company's liability, she would have been more cautious. Honestly, that separation letter needs to be revised by someone in Corporate Legal. FLSA, FMLA, Title VII, and Wage and Hour are not waiverable rights, so why place the disclaimer in there? True, one of the last paragraphs deal with the understanding that it only applies to rights that can be waived. It seems as though they were trying to release themselves of liability in exchange for severance, but that clause is void in Title VII cases. See a recent 8th Circuit decision regarding similar circumstances: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060623/ai_n16515403/

The plaintiff has a strong case. The FMLA letters state that BB would be restored to her position (she was not a key employee, her absence did not severely harm the company). The day BB returns to work she is terminated with a reason given that her position has been eliminated? A few weeks later, the same position is posted as vacant? Per the statement made in the FMLA letter, the company states that BB would be restored to her current position or an equivalent one: Even if the current position was unavailable, equivalent is the operative word. BB demonstrated in her exhibits that equivalent positions in the same grade were available at the time or shortly after her discharge.

Looking at this case, I'm appalled at the shear level of stupidity and incompetence. If I could ask a question, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? I'm not stating that companies do not have the right to make employment-related decisions - at will employment doctrine allows for discharge for any reason not protected by law. But seriously. Educated folk, especially in this area of labor law, would have gone about this a different way.

As far as the Masters comment is concerned, I will agree that they are not as valued as they used to be; however, I wouldn't trade what I learned and gained from graduate education for any other benefit. Education is not only a method to obtain higher earnings, but provides the well-rounded perspectives need to sufficiently compete in a global society.
 






Anonymous said:
Being aware of the HR Director through indirect association, I can make a fair assessment that she lacks certifiable experience in the area of labor relations. Having an SPHR does not make you an expert on the rules and regulations that govern employment-related concerns. Most professionally-organized Human Resources departments with other Fortune 500 companies have Human Resource personnel who specialize in certain areas. One will deal strictly with Employment Classification and Hiring, one with Compensation and Benefits, and one with Employee Relations.

Had this HR Director been competent enough to read the fine print and have an adequate understanding of the company's liability, she would have been more cautious. Honestly, that separation letter needs to be revised by someone in Corporate Legal. FLSA, FMLA, Title VII, and Wage and Hour are not waiverable rights, so why place the disclaimer in there? True, one of the last paragraphs deal with the understanding that it only applies to rights that can be waived. It seems as though they were trying to release themselves of liability in exchange for severance, but that clause is void in Title VII cases. See a recent 8th Circuit decision regarding similar circumstances: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060623/ai_n16515403/

The plaintiff has a strong case. The FMLA letters state that BB would be restored to her position (she was not a key employee, her absence did not severely harm the company). The day BB returns to work she is terminated with a reason given that her position has been eliminated? A few weeks later, the same position is posted as vacant? Per the statement made in the FMLA letter, the company states that BB would be restored to her current position or an equivalent one: Even if the current position was unavailable, equivalent is the operative word. BB demonstrated in her exhibits that equivalent positions in the same grade were available at the time or shortly after her discharge.

Looking at this case, I'm appalled at the shear level of stupidity and incompetence. If I could ask a question, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? I'm not stating that companies do not have the right to make employment-related decisions - at will employment doctrine allows for discharge for any reason not protected by law. But seriously. Educated folk, especially in this area of labor law, would have gone about this a different way.

As far as the Masters comment is concerned, I will agree that they are not as valued as they used to be; however, I wouldn't trade what I learned and gained from graduate education for any other benefit. Education is not only a method to obtain higher earnings, but provides the well-rounded perspectives need to sufficiently compete in a global society.
Click to expand...

Another great post !

And the HR Director in FL was and is not a "qualified" HR person.

She was/is an employee trainer that was "slid" into that position because she was friends with someone in HR at Burlington.

It appears now that this will show how bad Labcorp really is....
 












I'm not from the area, so can someone in just a few sentences explain what this thread is about. Obviously, some posts have been deleted. Is it about a woman on FMLA and once returned was terminated or about a skit that was enacted?
 












Anonymous said:
I'm not from the area, so can someone in just a few sentences explain what this thread is about. Obviously, some posts have been deleted. Is it about a woman on FMLA and once returned was terminated or about a skit that was enacted?
Click to expand...

This thread specifically addresses the case that involves MB and yes, the skit is related. There is a post before 94 that highlights the major facts in that case.

Post 94 deals with a separate, but closely related situation involving BB and wrongful discharge under FMLA. There are related as the same individuals who propagated the abusive termination of MB are also mentioned in BB's case.

Hope this helps.

On a side note, BN was transferred to Texas. I'm unaware as to how he is performing, so I'm unable to comment. Perhaps someone can chime in and provide some unbiased insight.
 












Top Bottom
Back
Quote