I need some council....I was recently laid off from an company that I had worked for approximately 9 months. At my place of employment I served as the unofficial trainer for new hires. In May, I was speaking with a co-worker named Tammy. We were showing each other pictures of our families on our camera phones. The co-worker who sat across a small dividing wall, Mike, who was one of the trainees asked me if I wanted to see his pictures. His sister had recently given birth and he had just come back from seeing the baby so I said sure. He handed me the phone and on the screen was a close up of a vagina. I sarcastically said "Thanks" and handed the phone back and turned to talk to Tammy. He took the phone and handed it back with a picture of breast on it. Again, I said "thanks" and handed it back, Mike then preceded to scroll through his other pictures of bikini clad women pushing their breasts together. I felt really intimidated because he was standing close to me so I said goodbye to Tammy and got ready to go home.

My company has a "Statement of Ethical Principles" so I reported the situation to HR. She didn't see concerned but said she would have a talk with Mike. Later that afternoon she calls Mike to her office. When he was walking back to his desk Tammy had asked what was wrong and he loudly told her what had been discussed at his meeting with HR. He told her he was in trouble but I was unable to hear their full conversation because I received a call on my phone but her kept pointing at me and nodding in my direction.
After I left work I called HR around 4pm to follow up with her and left a message. She returned my call around 4:30pm. She said that her message had been clear that Mike needed to behave more appropriately and that this would be documented in her confidential file. HR also said she would be speaking with Mike again to reiterate that he needed to behave more appropriately. I asked what steps would be taken now and she said none. I feared retaliation and HR told me that they appreciated me bringing this to their attention but all the could do was tell him to keep quiet and I needed to rise above the situation.

Several instances happened later where Mike would yell or make snide comments to me at work such as , "Why don't you shut and stop listening to other people's conversations" or "Oh look, Priscilla's gonna go tattle on me again" whenever I would leave my desk. He refused to answer any work related questions and caused an uncomfortable working situation. One of my other trainees noticed and asked me what was wrong. Being that it was confidential I didn't tell them. I kept bringing these instances for the last 2 months to either the manager of HR who did nothing. In a company training class they had some role playing exercises complete with fictitious data for the clients. One of the clients was named Priscilla Winezelot. I was naturally concerned because my name is Priscilla and I had gone to the managers and hire ups on numerous occasions because of Mike's behavior. The other fake clients names were John Nidaquote, Sharon Megabucks and Steve Wannasave.

The week before I was fired the manager "accidentally" emailed several peoples salary to the team. Over 18 people had received and opened the email and shared it with other co-workers. I was the first person to notify the manager that his email had been sent with confidential information. He called me into a meeting and accused me of leaking it to everyone and said that "this is an unfortunate situation for [me] you." I told him that I hadn't done anything improper but he kept repeating "this is an unfortunate situation for [me] you."

One week later he calls a meeting for me and the 2 others that held the same position I had under the pretense of discussing bonus and goals and HR comes in and hands us our final paychecks and a form to sign over our rights to sue the company. I need help because I was laid off because the company was "going in a different direction" and there was a "lack of work" yet they are beginning a hiring frenzy using temps from a local agency to do my job. I still haven't signed the form yet. I thought I would post this first. Now I am unemployed and Mike got a promotion. The two others, Nancy and Pam, they laid off had issues with HR as well. Nancy had recently spoken with HR about harassment by Mike and Pat has health problems that management had spoken to her about. Pat apologized after they laid us off because she she said they didn't want to single her out.

Can anyone help me? I'm seriously thinking of contacting the SR. VP of HR in our parent company to alert them to the practices at the office. I'm not money hungry or vindictive but before I sign my rights away I would like to get some kind of compensation. I was the top of my division. I trained those above me but when I asked about moving to that position, which the are hiring for, I was told by the President that would have to be reapply for it behind everyone else and I supposedly couldn't do what I had trained their sales for TO DO!

Thanks.

DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING!!!! You are not required to sign anything. It is a common tactic to conduct "exit interviews," and sign waivers right along with your COBRA & final paycheck. They like to do this in one swift move, knowing you just want your paycheck & get out of there. You don't need to do any interviews or sign anything. They want you to waive your right to sue for a reason. Depending on the timing of the events you explained, among other details, this may indeed be retailiation for complaining. Go to eeoc.gov. If you can, get a letter of recommendation from them, don't let them hang the "waiver" over your head for it. See if you can get your employee file, as well, and take note of who your replacement is. see eeoc.gov. Talk to two the other two people as well, are they being replaced also? Did they have any complaints?

What kind of reccomendation? I'm sorry but all this is new to me.

Thank you for your help.

A reference letter for future employers. Call them up & politely asks them for one. They may try to hold it for the waiver. Beat them to the punch & ask them to mail you the recommendation. after that see if you can get your employee file (check with state laws). Your performance reviews would probably be in there. That way, IF you do find that you were retailiated against illegally, you are armed. that's what I would do, anyway.

An employer is not required to provide a reference letter and and will not give you your personnel file if they are smart. You have a right to view your personnel file but may not take any part of it or make copies. It is company property.

Contact the EEOC. What happened consitiutes sexual harassment and retaliation. Both are forbidden. They can provide guidance and do not sign anything. California requires that a terminated employee receive their final paycheck including accrued vacation at the time of termination. If the company refuses to provide the paycheck, go to the Department of Labor. The company is subject to penalties and you to additional pay for not receiveing it. Payment for sick leave is not required unless the company employee manual states that it will be paid at termination.

Nobody's saying that the employer is required to give a letter. The suggestion is to obtain one before it is used as leverage to sign a waiver. Employees are not required to sign waivers. That's the game.
Laws regarding copies & reviews of employee files, as well as what an employee file should consist of, vary from state to state.
In my state an employee IS entitled to a copy of their personell file, upon written request. If something is not in that copy that should have been, it can't be used against them later. The point is, gather up information to make your prima facade (first level of proof) case prior to filing with the eeoc. You can still contact them. they note telephone contacts and e-mails.

For the record, from an HR standpoint, letters of reference or recommendation are essentially worthless because they're too easy to fake.

In California, personnel files are company property although an attorney can get a copy as part of discovery. You may view your personnel file upon written request at a time and place convenient to HR. You may not remove papers from it, copy papers from it or remove it from the premises. I know of an incident where the police were called and an individual was arrested for trying to remove documents and refusing to give them back when caught. You may submit responses to documents but there is not guarantee that it will be included in the file. HR will probably not allow you to view the file without someone in attendance, especially if there is a perception that there may be problems. Very, very, very few companies here give references anymore because of the risk of doing so, even for a good reference. As stated, the individual needs to contact EEOC and not sign anything. We all agree on that.

Arguing for the sake of arguing...give me a break.
Go to Equal Rights Advocates, they have a web page & hot-line where you can get free legal advice & assistance with how to file a charge, if needed. The web site also offers some suggestions with how to build your case. The advice I have given is based on advice from a variety of groups & individuals, including employment attorney's, to help move forward in life as well as protect in the event of a charge. Just because is one opinion from an HR perspective a letter of recommendation is worthless (I disagree), doesn't mean you can't request one. From a legal perspective it certainly can help. Nothing wrong with getting your ducks in a row while preparing for a job hunt. Harassment/discrimination cases are very difficult to prove, and rely heavily on circumstantial evidence. Besides, if you are job hunting why WOULDN'T you want a letter of recommendation? And if you are leaving a job, why WOULD you want to sign anything? It's a matter of building your case to protect yourself for whatever may (or may not) happen in the future. EEOC charges are not something to be entered into lightly. They can change your whole life & put people through a lot of emotional turmoil.

If you were an HR manager looking to hire someone, why would you pay any attention to a letter of recommendation when anyone with a scanner and a good laser printer can create a fake letter of recommendation from any company in the country, or even the world?

It's not worth making an issue over since few if any prospective employers will pay any attention to it.

It depends on the employer. We are also talking about not just a simple letter, but a potential eeoc charge.
Is it worth signing away your rights for it? No, of course not. But that's not what I'm talking about. If you can get it, then why not? So far as it being "faked," give me a break! I'm sure that happens, but for crying out loud they usually HAVE the name & number there. Chances are usually good that it was probably typed up by a secretary. To protect yourself, the more of a paper trail, the better. Employment attorneys will usually advise to get EVERY little scrap of paper you can, starting from the ad that brought you to the job. Should the employer decide to retailiate or change their story in the event of an investigation, it's going to be just that more difficult to say something negative with a positive letter in your hand.
You are playing devil's advocate.

"If you were an HR manager looking to hire someone, why would you pay any attention to a letter of recommendation when anyone with a scanner and a good laser printer can create a fake letter of recommendation from any company in the country, or even the world?"

Yes, it is easy to fake. However, so is a degree, etc. If anything leads you to doubt the item's authenticity, it's easy enough to contact the supposed author of the letter to see if they wrote it.

I think you make a fundamental assumption when hiring someone that they aren't a total sociopath ;).

"It's not worth making an issue over since few if any prospective employers will pay any attention to it."

It depends on the prospective employer. Academic institutions often ask for letters of reference when one applies for a faculty position. My understanding (second-hand) is that M.D. hiring usually involves letters of recommendation.

And what, in the original post, leads you to believe that the OP is either looking for a faculty or an MD position?

"In California, personnel files are company property although an attorney can get a copy as part of discovery."

If you have a claim, it's a pretty safe bet that you can use discovery to get copies of anything at all relevant to your claim - with or without an attorney.

"You may view your personnel file upon written request at a time and place convenient to HR."

Eh, nonsense. You just have to give them actual notice of your desire to see the file and then they have to give access at a reasonable time and place - which is not the same as "at their convenience".

"You may not remove papers from it, copy papers from it or remove it from the premises."

The statute in CA Labor Code §432; allows employee to get copies of papers that employee has signed. Common sense and Common Law dictate that if an employee is entitled to see something, so is his legal representative such as his attorney or heirs should he die. In practice, this means the employer probably needs to give copies to the employee if he requests, or else allow the employee's attorney access. The law is silent on whether the employer actually needs to give copies, but failure to do so is quasi-legal, at best, and is going to smell bad and suggest bad faith at trial. When the employee shows a letter requesting a copy of the file, and a letter denying him a copy, the employee's inevitable claims that the file has been altered by the time of trial are going to be bolstered.

I don't know about CA specifically, but in many states the statutory law on this does little more than reiterate common law doctrines that allow much broader access than the statutes would suggest.

The eeoc can take care of a great deal of "discovery" without paying an attorney. They have very broad supeona powers. You won't actually get all that information until the case is closed, but it may be worth the process.

I'm not sure how this fits into this case, but courts have held that employees cannot be fired for discussing wages. eeoc considers defines wages as "compensation" which includes bonuses, among other things.

grasmicc was OBVIOUSLY just using an example where a letter of recommendation is used. Please get off the letter thing. You are entitled to your opinion, but others are intitled to disagree. you are sounding like you are groping for a way to "be right" as opposed to logical consideration of stratigies.

And what, in the original post, leads you to believe that the OP is either looking for a faculty or an MD position?

I'm just rebutting your claim that "Few, if any, employers ask for letters".

Clearly there are entire fields where employers ask for letters. I don't know if retail employers request them because, honestly, I've never sought a retail job. It seems reasonable to assume that at least some retail employers, especially mom-and-pop type places, might request them.

Also, there are other uses for a Letter than employment. My wife and I had to supply letters from current and former employers when we moved into a Co-Op. I also know that some mortgage companies request confirmations of past employment and salary in the form of a letter. Colleges and University's often request letters as well. They are a good thing to have.

Edit:

Incidentally, I highly doubt I'd ever request letters from job applicants - mostly because I doubt the ability of a third party to accurately evaluate the candidate in terms of the characteristics I am interested in. However, there's ample evidence that many employers, for whatever reason, do request them.

"If you have a claim, it is a pretty safe bet that you can use discovery to get copies of anything at all relevant to your claim - with or without an attorney."

Since discovery is a part of the lawsuit process, it stands to reason that getting a copy of a personnel file is due to a lawsuit. Logical.

"Eh, nonsense. You just have to give them actual notice of your desire to see the files and then they have to give access at a reasonable time and place - which is not the same as "at their convenience".

True to a point. Access is at a reasonable time and place, not yours but a mutually agreed upon time and place. The place will always be at the company offices during normal working hours. So, if you want to see your file, it is within that time frame whether it is convenient to you or not. HR is not required by any statute to pay overtime for you to view your file. They may be willing to do so as a courtesy.

"The statute in CA Labor Code...I will not reprint your whole paragraph."

True, en ex-employee is entitled to copies of anything that they signed, they are supposed to be given a copy at the time they sign it. If not or they loose it, they can request it and receive a copy. However, HR is not required to give a complete copy of the file without some documentation from a legal source. And as for it being bad faith. Nonsense! In a questionable situation, any competent attorney will recommend that you not give anything until it is requested as part of the discovery process. Since an HR person is not an attorney, the attorney should review the file and tell you what you can and cannot give before discovery, at least ours does. It is just as easy for the ex-employee to use a computer and scanner to alter documents. The issue then becomes, whose is correct.


Someone in one of these noted that the posters are not attorneys and should not take advice. True to a point, but as was stated by a senior member, many are long term HR professionals with extensive backgrounds. I would still caution anyone to check any advice given with a competent attorney, if there is a potential for a lawsuit. I do!

Who should you take advice from?
Human Resource Managers...Attorneys...regular people who have had the same experience....?
Everyone. & No one.
Employment attorny's vary greatly in their experience, strategies, and viewpoints. One may be great at employment contracts, another quid pro quo harassment, and neither very successful with discrimination. It makes a difference, to, if they specialize in working for employers or employees or both. I suspect Human Resource managers are similar. They may have much experience in a variety of employment concerns (not just legal) but may not always see both sides of an issue completely. Chances are they are not working with employee attorneys as much as employer's. After all, who pays the bill?
Not saying that's always the case, nor discrediting opinion or experience of an attorney or HR person.
People who have been through whatever the situation is certainly are worth hearing as well...they've been there, done that. But you don't know what details of their experience led them to where they ended up.
I'd say, listen to everyone, gather the informaiton, opinions, experience.
Then sit down on your own and decide for yourself. After all, it's your case.
oh,isn't that what people are really here for, anyway?

"And as for it being bad faith. Nonsense! In a questionable situation, any competent attorney will recommend that you not give anything until it is requested as part of the discovery process."

I didn't say it was bad faith. I said it was going to look like bad faith at trial.

"Since an HR person is not an attorney, the attorney should review the file and tell you what you can and cannot give before discovery, at least ours does. It is just as easy for the ex-employee to use a computer and scanner to alter documents. The issue then becomes, whose is correct."

Exactly. And your refusal to provide a complete copy of the file early on is going to bolster my claims at trial that you have altered the file. Assuming the file isn't altered, I don't see it making much difference when I get access.

"Someone in one of these noted that the posters are not attorneys and should not take advice."

I don't see that it particularly matters, but from what I can tell, several of the people on this board are attorneys. I suspect that ElkLaw is, for instance (sorry ElkLaw if I outed you). I could name a few others but I am less sure.

A smart and sane attorney wouldn't post advice on an online message board because it opens one up to malpractice claims, likely violates the policies of his employer/insurer, and raises the possibility of problems with their state bar. If, however, one were suffering from an overwhelming compulsion to post on here, one way to do it is to do so without admitting/mentioning that they are an attorney, thus reducing the likelihood of problems arising.

" True to a point, but as was stated by a senior member, many are long term HR professionals with extensive backgrounds. I would still caution anyone to check any advice given with a competent attorney, if there is a potential for a lawsuit. I do!"

I agree with this. See an attorney in real life,... IF you can. If you can't, then this board is better than nothing though I'd personally advise researching primary sources if one is able to do so. More often than not the answers to people's questions can easily be found on the websites of their state government or in statutes or law review articles.

"Employment attorny's vary greatly in their experience, strategies, and viewpoints."

Correct. They also vary considerably in intelligence. Half of being a (corporate) lawyer is helping clients get out of problems that their old lawyer got them into.

"One may be great at employment contracts, another quid pro quo harassment, and neither very successful with discrimination."

Absolutely correct. The real truth is that when someone comes to an attorney, more often than not the attorney has no idea what the answer to their question is, and simply researches it (or, more commonly, has a $20/hr paralegal reserach it).

Law schools don't teach substantive law. They teach legal theory and how to research and think like a lawyer. Also, the bar exam is too general to ensure that beginning attorneys have anything other than a basic familiarity with most aspects of law.

Bottom line, lawyers know very little about the law beyond what everyone else does. However, they know a lot more about how to FIND answers.

"It makes a difference, to, if they specialize in working for employers or employees or both."

Correct.

" I suspect Human Resource managers are similar. They may have much experience in a variety of employment concerns (not just legal) but may not always see both sides of an issue completely."

Correct.

" Chances are they are not working with employee attorneys as much as employer's. After all, who pays the bill?"

Correct. This gives them a certain bias.

"Not saying that's always the case, nor discrediting opinion or experience of an attorney or HR person."

I agree with this - but would go on to say, it's totally irrelevant what someone's background or experience is. Some of the great American Supreme Court Justices didn't even go to law school...

What's relevant is a person'sr ability to come to correct legal conclusions. This usually occurs through research. Half of what the "HR professionals" on here do is go to websites or texts that list labor law rules by state and then repeat what they read there on the board. How does their experience come into play in that?

"People who have been through whatever the situation is certainly are worth hearing as well...they've been there, done that."

I agree with this also. Oftentimes people with experience will be able to give better advice on creative ways to handle situations. It's rare that they have any insight into actual laws or regulations, but experience can give them practical solutions to day-to-day problems.

"I'd say, listen to everyone, gather the informaiton, opinions, experience.
Then sit down on your own and decide for yourself."

I agree, excpet would say that they should sit down with source materials rather than on their own.