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

Quote
An interesting development in the BB case yesterday located on pacer. Looks as though the federal court judge isn't buying off on lca's denial of age disrimination playing a key part along with fmla issues in her termination.

copied and pasted from an order granted by the judge on pacer with names removed to protect the guilty:

In the deposition , a former Lab Corp. employee, testified that TF
the vice president of sales, instructed him to hire “good looking” and “young” female talent. Former employee testified that TF told him: “You need to hire young talent” and praised him for hiring good-looking women. ( Dep. at 47-48.) Former employee also testified that TF
said he preferred that he not hire anyone close to retirement age.
 






Anonymous said:
An interesting development in the BB case yesterday located on pacer. Looks as though the federal court judge isn't buying off on lca's denial of age disrimination playing a key part along with fmla issues in her termination.

copied and pasted from an order granted by the judge on pacer with names removed to protect the guilty:

In the deposition , a former Lab Corp. employee, testified that TF
the vice president of sales, instructed him to hire “good looking” and “young” female talent. Former employee testified that TF told him: “You need to hire young talent” and praised him for hiring good-looking women. ( Dep. at 47-48.) Former employee also testified that TF
said he preferred that he not hire anyone close to retirement age.
Click to expand...

This shouldn't surprise anyone. This is exactly how they operate at Labcorp.
In Tampa, it is just standard operating procedure.

Maybe now they will pay for it.
Actually, Labcorp will pay for it.
 


















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!
 






Anonymous said:
That was the funniest skit I have ever seen in my life! Though I did think that the pelvic exam was very crude and uncalled for. Someone said that TN went all the way into her crotch ( Was he just practicing for what was to come next at the LCA office with the phleb, AB_Y?) How could it be that he gets caught porking her at the office and she bashes in his car for giving her herpes and then she gets riffed, not him?

These characters are class act SEXIST pigs! I hope BN gets fired for this!
Click to expand...

Help...I have TN as an RMBD and there has been many times he has crossed the line with me and the rest of us....However HR does not listen or help! Where can we go for help?
 






Anonymous said:
Standard operating procedure in Tampa? Do they often break employment laws? Please share.
Click to expand...

At first, it would have seemed as those issues were isolated to Sales, but Operations seems to have their own cases building. These issues include workman compensation claim denials, withholding overtime pay, withholding pay for bona fide rest periods and ADA and Title VII discrimination.

I can only comment on the plight of non-exempt workers for LCA. Exempt employees, including Sales, can provide more insight on their concerns.

Again, I'd like to reiterate how a well-run Human Resources department can effectively prevent litigation, serve as a partner for management and employees, and allow any corporation to move forward in strategic growth.
 






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...

There has been sexual harassment & harassment in general, but we need some protection here....HR was notified but nothing came of it. None of us can afford to lose our jobs. We need help!
 






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. There are several people in Florida who are about to file eeoc charges against them because of this exact same behavior in Florida HR where no formal investigation is ever done and the behavior continues to be allowed.

According to the suit filed by bb and mb the common theme has been the allowed continued behavior of these types of issues in florida due to hr florida either not investigating reported issues or flat out lying that issues ever existed in the first place. When you report these issues to the eeoc, they can't act as if they didn't exist and it's a shield of protection.
 






Anonymous said:
Help...I have TN as an RMBD and there has been many times he has crossed the line with me and the rest of us....However HR does not listen or help! Where can we go for help?
Click to expand...

First, go to the EEOC and file a complaint. You MUST do this first as it will protect against any retaliation from TN or TF or KS. DO THIS FIRST AND DO IT RIGHT AWAY.

Then once you have a claim file number, go to an attorney and inform them of what is happening. You will then be protected and it will be one of many claims against these jerks who think they are above the law and think they can treat people any way they desire.
...and they will continue to do so until we take a stand.

DO IT.....
 






Anonymous said:
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. There are several people in Florida who are about to file eeoc charges against them because of this exact same behavior in Florida HR where no formal investigation is ever done and the behavior continues to be allowed.

According to the suit filed by bb and mb the common theme has been the allowed continued behavior of these types of issues in florida due to hr florida either not investigating reported issues or flat out lying that issues ever existed in the first place. When you report these issues to the eeoc, they can't act as if they didn't exist and it's a shield of protection.
Click to expand...

I have to concur with these statements. EEOC has a very interesting way of processing complaints. Bottom line, if there are enough complaints within a company, EEOC lumps them into a "class" and will offer to take the case themselves. Make sure that you document dates and times. Have a minute taker or witness if possible. Protected Activity is grouped into two categories: Participation and Opposition.

As early on as possible, make your position known, preferably in writing. E-mails, mailed correspondence, something. Do not wait until something adverse happens before filing a charge. Now, there are decent people working for EEOC. They are overworked and burdened with large caseloads which should be resolved during next FY. Make sure you have something concrete and not a wild accusation.
 






Once you file with the eeoc, send a detailed email to labcorp legal and corporate HR that you filed a charge with the EEOC and give the date you filed. State very specifically that on multiple attempts you discussed your concerns with KS, TF and whomever else you in fact discussed these concerns with. Let them know that no investigation was ever done and that you feel threatened that these types of discrminatory behavior are being allowed to continue. Be very specific that you feel as if your job is at risk because you have now went a further step by reporting this behavior to the EEOC and that you fear relatiliation by KS ,TN, TF and the people allowing it to continue. Make sue you make a copy of your email and put it in your own file at home. You may also want to copy a few people you trust at your level and let them know you have done this. This will add additional layers of protection.

If legal or labcorp human resources contacts you and wants to speak with you about the situation, you have to bring your own attorney with you! You want to cooperate with the process but DONT let them fool you into showing up alone! This ensures that your story doesn't get twisted into what labcorp wants to hear!
 






BB wins on summary judgement against LabCorp on all counts. The judge found reason to believe that a reasonable jury could find that BB was in fact discriminated against because of her age and that LabCorp violated the FMLA. The two people responsible for this are Florida Human Resources and Florida Vice President of Sales TF. See judges comments below:

First, Burke offers evidence that at age 56 she was purportedly fired in a reduction in
force in which Lab Corp. eliminated only one administrative specialist position in her office,
while simultaneously creating a new administrative specialist position. The mere juxtaposition of events—downsizing one administrative specialist position to cut costs while simultaneously creating a new administrative specialist position with similar duties—raises an inference that Lab Corp. did not terminate Burke for its purported reason, to cut costs. In addition, KS statement to Burke that no other jobs were available—which was false and which KS should have known to be false—also raises an inference the Lab Corp. sought to push Burke out of the company for reasons unrelated to downsizing. In addition, Lab Corp. hired a 34-year-old woman, SO, to fill the new post, but failed to even grant Burke an interview. The parties dispute whether SO was more or less qualified than Burke for the job. The hiring of a younger woman in a similar position subsequent to firing a 56-year-old employee in a protected class also raises an inference of age discrimination.
 






Anonymous said:
BB wins on summary judgement against LabCorp on all counts. The judge found reason to believe that a reasonable jury could find that BB was in fact discriminated against because of her age and that LabCorp violated the FMLA. The two people responsible for this are Florida Human Resources and Florida Vice President of Sales TF. See judges comments below:

First, Burke offers evidence that at age 56 she was purportedly fired in a reduction in
force in which Lab Corp. eliminated only one administrative specialist position in her office,
while simultaneously creating a new administrative specialist position. The mere juxtaposition of events—downsizing one administrative specialist position to cut costs while simultaneously creating a new administrative specialist position with similar duties—raises an inference that Lab Corp. did not terminate Burke for its purported reason, to cut costs. In addition, KS statement to Burke that no other jobs were available—which was false and which KS should have known to be false—also raises an inference the Lab Corp. sought to push Burke out of the company for reasons unrelated to downsizing. In addition, Lab Corp. hired a 34-year-old woman, SO, to fill the new post, but failed to even grant Burke an interview. The parties dispute whether SO was more or less qualified than Burke for the job. The hiring of a younger woman in a similar position subsequent to firing a 56-year-old employee in a protected class also raises an inference of age discrimination.
Click to expand...


I just couldn't help but laugh. KS, I'm sure your days are numbered.

Footnotes from Judge's opinion. The names have been redacted since I find it improper to post anyone's real name.

XX, the human resource director, later explained that she failed to mention the
administrative specialist position to XX 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 XX sought approval for the new position two weeks earlier. (Doc. 41, Ex. 3.)
 






Anonymous said:
BB wins on summary judgement against LabCorp on all counts. The judge found reason to believe that a reasonable jury could find that BB was in fact discriminated against because of her age and that LabCorp violated the FMLA. The two people responsible for this are Florida Human Resources and Florida Vice President of Sales TF. See judges comments below:

First, Burke offers evidence that at age 56 she was purportedly fired in a reduction in
force in which Lab Corp. eliminated only one administrative specialist position in her office,
while simultaneously creating a new administrative specialist position. The mere juxtaposition of events—downsizing one administrative specialist position to cut costs while simultaneously creating a new administrative specialist position with similar duties—raises an inference that Lab Corp. did not terminate Burke for its purported reason, to cut costs. In addition, KS statement to Burke that no other jobs were available—which was false and which KS should have known to be false—also raises an inference the Lab Corp. sought to push Burke out of the company for reasons unrelated to downsizing. In addition, Lab Corp. hired a 34-year-old woman, SO, to fill the new post, but failed to even grant Burke an interview. The parties dispute whether SO was more or less qualified than Burke for the job. The hiring of a younger woman in a similar position subsequent to firing a 56-year-old employee in a protected class also raises an inference of age discrimination.
Click to expand...

In all my time, I have never seen such great use of words. The Judge couldn't have said it any better. KS and TF's statements are conclusory at best, and should not be viewed as credible.

Wow, I'm very impressed. Nearly speechless.
 






bb could win millions in front of a jury. Let's face it, she really stands for the millions of average americans out there coming to work, doing there job and getting screwed because of the arogance of people like ks and tf. There days are numbered after this. The judge basically says that ks lied in her testimony and that she didn't believe tf!

this is priceless, keep posting please........
 






Anonymous said:
bb could win millions in front of a jury. Let's face it, she really stands for the millions of average americans out there coming to work, doing there job and getting screwed because of the arogance of people like ks and tf. There days are numbered after this. The judge basically says that ks lied in her testimony and that she didn't believe tf!

this is priceless, keep posting please........
Click to expand...

I wonder if KS will be facing perjury charges ?
 






They have gotten away with lying so much these past several years that it looks as if it's about to finally catch up with them. As far as perjury charges, that will be up to the plantiff in this case to take further action against them, for commiting a fraud on the court. BB attorney should understand that and file a complaint to the court.
 






Anonymous said:
I wonder if KS will be facing perjury charges ?
Click to expand...

BB would just need to file a complaint in court and the case will be referred to the State Attorney's office. At that point, they will decide if she committed perjury; which based on the record and the depositions, it is my opinion that it wouldn't be difficult to make the case.

837.02 Perjury in official proceedings.--

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

KS was under oath stating that she was unaware of the position. Yet, in the exhibits, an e-mail demonstrated that she fully knew about it. KS is hanging herself, metaphorically speaking and I honestly don't know why.
 






Is this something BB should file while her case is currently in process or should she wait until after the jury trial? Can someone file it directly themselves or should they instruct the attorney to do it?

What if an attorney in this process with these cases asked me to perjure myself to better there defense against these people? Is that something I can report the attorney for and how do we do that? We tried telling both HR and labcorp officials and they have ignored it!
 






Top Bottom
Back
Quote