Terminating the pregnant employee...who was falsifying signature forms..

Quote
Anonymous said:
HAHA funny stuff! You must be the sad ass "counterpart" mentioned in the deposition who bragged about helping his manager get his "partner" fired so he wouldnt be in the territory alone. Funny how things work out. Again no one takes the time to be informed, to go and actually read the public record. There was no accusation, ever, of innapropriate use of samples or any action that was worthy of termination. Even the judge in the unemployment trial agreed. Composing a long list of questions to ask a rep about that happened 8 months earlier is totally bogus. Questions that could have been brought up while the rep was still in territory prior to maternity leave. The "clairification meeting" in August mentioned in testimony was a total joke! Hansen had already announced, ironically on the date of the birth of her child, that R had been fired and he planned to put the tri-cities rep in the position. Another male rep got the spot according to the documents.

Bottom line... belive what you want. Don't take the time to read the testimony that was provided under oath, its way more interesting to make it up as you go along. BTW there are hundereds of pages of Depositions that provide vast quantities of details including names and dates.

Enjoy! Ignorance is bliss and makes you believe you are right!
Click to expand...

Where is the public record that you are quoting, can you provide a link? If anything, the HR deptartment should of known better! They gave the OK to fire her, Hansen was just reporting what he's finding in the field and HR OK'ed the termination. Can't fault a guy for doing what HR tells him too!? Notice that he was never called in front of the jury, cause Novartis knew that they screwed him and are trying to let him take the hit!

PS - why are we crushing this guy, did anyone notice all the other deplorable actions that took place? Rapes?!?!?!
 






Anonymous said:
The TRUE appaling tale. But the other posts will ignore that part of the story and just focus on the pregnancy. Everyone knows, if you mess with the distribution of samples and/or the paper trail associated with it, you are going to be fired. END OF STORY.


This was the cornerstone arguement? Jurors are such morons!
Click to expand...

To all of the speculating ignoramouses on this thread: No one knows shit about whether this rep. actually falsified recording of samples. This was the potential angle of a manager who previously gave the rep. glowing reviews until she became pregnant. Does that not seem odd to anyone with the ability to think rationally. Is is not a far stretch to think that maybe this was a made up argument by the manager to HR for the termination. Either way: NO ONE on this thread actually knows. So stop with the ignorant speculation, and focus on what is known. That there was some sort of systematic problem or trend within the organization regarding women who got pregnant and then were pressured to quit or be terminated. That is the basis of the lawsuit which the jury awarded to the plaintiffs. They listened to the testimony in the trial, not anyone speculating on this thread. Before you go off on a tangent, stick to what is known from the court transcripts and reporting by the legal journalists and lawyers about this trial. READ, READ, READ.
 






Anonymous said:
HAHA funny stuff! You must be the sad ass "counterpart" mentioned in the deposition who bragged about helping his manager get his "partner" fired so he wouldnt be in the territory alone. Funny how things work out. Again no one takes the time to be informed, to go and actually read the public record. There was no accusation, ever, of innapropriate use of samples or any action that was worthy of termination. Even the judge in the unemployment trial agreed. Composing a long list of questions to ask a rep about that happened 8 months earlier is totally bogus. Questions that could have been brought up while the rep was still in territory prior to maternity leave. The "clairification meeting" in August mentioned in testimony was a total joke! Hansen had already announced, ironically on the date of the birth of her child, that R had been fired and he planned to put the tri-cities rep in the position. Another male rep got the spot according to the documents.

Bottom line... belive what you want. Don't take the time to read the testimony that was provided under oath, its way more interesting to make it up as you go along. BTW there are hundereds of pages of Depositions that provide vast quantities of details including names and dates.

Enjoy! Ignorance is bliss and makes you believe you are right!
Click to expand...

Actually, the error starts with the title of this thread. It was never claimed she falsified samlpe signature forms, it was claimed she falsified calls, BIG DIFFERENCE. Trust me, we all ride with our DM and have a perfect day, it's not hard to put the effort whenever they ride with us. She pulled the wool over his eyes for a year and her counterpart ratted her out! Sounds pretty simple to me. And yes another male rep got her position, however he transfered from Central WA and Hansen replaced him with a woman, so what's your point?
 






Anonymous said:
To all of the speculating ignoramouses on this thread: No one knows shit about whether this rep. actually falsified recording of samples. This was the potential angle of a manager who previously gave the rep. glowing reviews until she became pregnant. Does that not seem odd to anyone with the ability to think rationally. Is is not a far stretch to think that maybe this was a made up argument by the manager to HR for the termination. Either way: NO ONE on this thread actually knows. So stop with the ignorant speculation, and focus on what is known. That there was some sort of systematic problem or trend within the organization regarding women who got pregnant and then were pressured to quit or be terminated. That is the basis of the lawsuit which the jury awarded to the plaintiffs. They listened to the testimony in the trial, not anyone speculating on this thread. Before you go off on a tangent, stick to what is known from the court transcripts and reporting by the legal journalists and lawyers about this trial. READ, READ, READ.
Click to expand...

Agreed, however where can I read everything?
 












Can you post a link, website, anything showing the public record of testimony? Until people on this board read this document, it's going to be one stupid post after another.
 






As a Manager you would have to be a fool to hire a female of child bearing age. When are you managers going to realize that the barbie reps who give you compliments and batt their eyes at you are just playing you. They are just waiting on you to step out of line so they can bust you. Much easier than working.

Do not hire women under 35 if at all...
 






Anonymous said:
Actually, the error starts with the title of this thread. It was never claimed she falsified samlpe signature forms, it was claimed she falsified calls, BIG DIFFERENCE. Trust me, we all ride with our DM and have a perfect day, it's not hard to put the effort whenever they ride with us. She pulled the wool over his eyes for a year and her counterpart ratted her out! Sounds pretty simple to me. And yes another male rep got her position, however he transfered from Central WA and Hansen replaced him with a woman, so what's your point?
Click to expand...

Is this the best people that Novartis has since I left in 2001. So, everything was going so smoothly up until oh yea-she got pregnant. Then all of a sudden a counterpart ratted her out for not working. Dumbshit analysis. I worked at Novartis and reps. are expected to have a minimum sample to call ratio, so I expect she actually managed to keep up with the standards of that since her manager did give her good evaluations prior to becoming pregnant. If she was making false calls, then why wasn't this brought up prior to her pregnancy? How do you know if her counterpart did not like her? How do you even know that her counterpart or others Hansen managed did not make up false calls. Big deal, its pervasive to make up calls and your probably guilty of it too. What is known is that the manager only became determined to terminate her after she announced a pregnancy and he did not want the territory to be without a rep. during a maternity leave. And if this was only about 1 rep., it would not have been made class action brainiac. Now, go smoke on that you stupid 20 something moron.
 






Anonymous said:
Actually, the error starts with the title of this thread. It was never claimed she falsified samlpe signature forms, it was claimed she falsified calls, BIG DIFFERENCE. Trust me, we all ride with our DM and have a perfect day, it's not hard to put the effort whenever they ride with us. She pulled the wool over his eyes for a year and her counterpart ratted her out! Sounds pretty simple to me. And yes another male rep got her position, however he transfered from Central WA and Hansen replaced him with a woman, so what's your point?
Click to expand...

Falseifying calls, big f____ deal. Novartis got into this much trouble for something this minor. You've got to be kidding me. What a joke of a company Novartis has become. I knew this would be a problem back in the late 90's when they had to hire all those young N1, N2 reps. who just followed the Ciba and Geigy reps. like lapdogs.
 






Anonymous said:
Falseifying calls, big f____ deal. Novartis got into this much trouble for something this minor. You've got to be kidding me. What a joke of a company Novartis has become. I knew this would be a problem back in the late 90's when they had to hire all those young N1, N2 reps. who just followed the Ciba and Geigy reps. like lapdogs.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you old bag, but they did it because nurses and pharmacists like yourself couldn't SELL a fucking thing. You had to be able to talk, not mix compounds. No go back Rite Aid and shut the hell up.
 






When Ryan became pregnant Hansen asked HR if Ryan could be fired for not keeping up with paperwork regarding the number of drug samples she had given out to doctors. Hansen sent a list of doctors to HR for whom Ryan had not provided the proper paperwork:

April 10, 2003
From: Jim Hansen, district manager
To: Adrienne Fudge, director of HR

I can generate more on this list if needed. Just wondering how much more you would like to see. Obviously looking to fire this person. She is 6 months pregnant, too, just to let you know.

Ten days prior to Ryan going on disability after giving birth, Hansen tried again:

April 15th, 2003
From: Jim Hansen, district manager
To: Bob Kaplan, regional director

Obviously looking for the okay to terminate.

He didn’t get it, and so contacted HR later in June:

June 27, 2003
From: Jim Hansen, district manager
To: Adrienne Fudge, director of HR

Adrienne, here is a note from Raelene Ryan. Please advise. As you are aware, she is going to be terminated for falsification once the baby is delivered. As we discussed, we will continue to pay her maternity leave, however, she will be terminated so I can fill the position. Thanks –

Ryan gave birth to a daughter, Ashley, on July 1, 2003. On the same day, Hansen sent an email to his staff saying that Ryan will be terminated for falsifying sample forms. later that month he wrote to HR:

July 23rd, 2003
From: Jim Hansen, district manager
To: Adrienne Fudge, director HR; and Dan Duhart, regional manager

Adrienne, I just received, via e-mail, Raelene Ryan’s request for unpaid family leave once her maternity leave runs out. By using the 12 weeks of unpaid leave and her remaining vacation, she would return to work on December 8. I have still not heard back from you regarding our conversation two weeks ago. We have to settle this problem. It is getting out of hand. Please advise.
 






Anonymous said:
When Ryan became pregnant Hansen asked HR if Ryan could be fired for not keeping up with paperwork regarding the number of drug samples she had given out to doctors. Hansen sent a list of doctors to HR for whom Ryan had not provided the proper paperwork:

April 10, 2003
From: Jim Hansen, district manager
To: Adrienne Fudge, director of HR

I can generate more on this list if needed. Just wondering how much more you would like to see. Obviously looking to fire this person. She is 6 months pregnant, too, just to let you know.

Ten days prior to Ryan going on disability after giving birth, Hansen tried again:

April 15th, 2003
From: Jim Hansen, district manager
To: Bob Kaplan, regional director

Obviously looking for the okay to terminate.

He didn’t get it, and so contacted HR later in June:

June 27, 2003
From: Jim Hansen, district manager
To: Adrienne Fudge, director of HR

Adrienne, here is a note from Raelene Ryan. Please advise. As you are aware, she is going to be terminated for falsification once the baby is delivered. As we discussed, we will continue to pay her maternity leave, however, she will be terminated so I can fill the position. Thanks –

Ryan gave birth to a daughter, Ashley, on July 1, 2003. On the same day, Hansen sent an email to his staff saying that Ryan will be terminated for falsifying sample forms. later that month he wrote to HR:

July 23rd, 2003
From: Jim Hansen, district manager
To: Adrienne Fudge, director HR; and Dan Duhart, regional manager

Adrienne, I just received, via e-mail, Raelene Ryan’s request for unpaid family leave once her maternity leave runs out. By using the 12 weeks of unpaid leave and her remaining vacation, she would return to work on December 8. I have still not heard back from you regarding our conversation two weeks ago. We have to settle this problem. It is getting out of hand. Please advise.
Click to expand...

That was taken from the original posting about the "Appalling" tale of Novartis firing a pregnant employee. I, the OP of this thread, posted the ammended title to point out the truely appalling part....falsified sample reports. Mention abortion or prenant women getting fired, or alleged rape stories, and all women get itno a posting tizzy about how they've been wronged. Take the time and read the truth before you get you panties in a bunch...a problem Margie would never have.
 






Anonymous said:
I hate to break it to you old bag, but they did it because nurses and pharmacists like yourself couldn't SELL a fucking thing. You had to be able to talk, not mix compounds. No go back Rite Aid and shut the hell up.
Click to expand...

Just proves the case on how stupid some Novartis reps. are. Not a nurse, or a pharmacist, one of your kind-marketing major. Younger, not older rep., now in specialty hospital selling IV antibiotics, which by the way, involves so much microbiology understanding it makes your cardiovascular experience look like a joke. I was part of the group that built Lotrel from the paltry 85 mil product to 500 mil before Novartis even thought about hiring you.
 






Anonymous said:
That was taken from the original posting about the "Appalling" tale of Novartis firing a pregnant employee. I, the OP of this thread, posted the ammended title to point out the truely appalling part....falsified sample reports. Mention abortion or prenant women getting fired, or alleged rape stories, and all women get itno a posting tizzy about how they've been wronged. Take the time and read the truth before you get you panties in a bunch...a problem Margie would never have.
Click to expand...

Hello???? there was never any mention of Falsified Sample Reports. Slinging insults gets a great thread going with no merit or truth. Typical Cafepharma.

Oh well smut sells
 






Anonymous said:
Just proves the case on how stupid some Novartis reps. are. Not a nurse, or a pharmacist, one of your kind-marketing major. Younger, not older rep., now in specialty hospital selling IV antibiotics, which by the way, involves so much microbiology understanding it makes your cardiovascular experience look like a joke. I was part of the group that built Lotrel from the paltry 85 mil product to 500 mil before Novartis even thought about hiring you.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, you are a sad ass rep. Enjoy that douche.....
 






Anonymous said:
Hello???? there was never any mention of Falsified Sample Reports. Slinging insults gets a great thread going with no merit or truth. Typical Cafepharma.

Oh well smut sells
Click to expand...

Please read the other terminating the employee thread and all the emails providing the "appalling" tale. It clearly states the DM had concerns that there were questionable issues with sampling documentation. But the thread wanted to show the "appalling" part as trying to fire a pregnant rep. To me the "appalling" part is the smoke screen of terminating pregnant reps or alleged sexual assaults makes for great headlines, but has no true substance. Sleexy lawyers use these "appalling" buzz words to make their case seem more than it is. THAT is the true APPALLING part in all of this.
 


















Anonymous said:
Please read the other terminating the employee thread and all the emails providing the "appalling" tale. It clearly states the DM had concerns that there were questionable issues with sampling documentation. But the thread wanted to show the "appalling" part as trying to fire a pregnant rep. To me the "appalling" part is the smoke screen of terminating pregnant reps or alleged sexual assaults makes for great headlines, but has no true substance. Sleexy lawyers use these "appalling" buzz words to make their case seem more than it is. THAT is the true APPALLING part in all of this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, No, sorry to say way off base. To much supporting evidence in these womens cases. Email, FCR's, BDR's, Annual reviews, etc. These aren't headlines, this is appauling to happen in this decade. Maybe 20 or 30 years ago but this is so backward and sick. No rep is perfect but the acts that occurred are very offensive. They didn't happen once, and it wasn't one email. It happened over and over again and now more women are speaking up due to these brave women who came forward. Yes, this was, and still is appauling.
 












Top Bottom
Back
Quote