Reinstated after 10 year court battle

[tripled]

If my attorney reads this please don't think I mis-trust your abilities. It is that 2 heads are better then one.
I won't bore you with all the details. I was and am a MD state employee (please don't hold that against me). After a 10 year grievance procedure I re-gained my employment with the state. At the grievance hearing the State's witnesses perjured their butts off , without consequence. What they stated was held as gospel. Sorta like police officer v citizen. No documentation was required, if the the Sup. said it, it must be truthful. But I still won.

Let's just say that when a bureacrate loses they are not too happy. So before I even returned to work "vindictiveness" started. They transferred me to an office where keeping employees is a problem. Housing is so high a state employee could never afford to live there, so commuting is the only way. The commute is nerve racking (right outside DC) and long. Commute time for me is 1 hour 10 minutes at 6 o'clock in the morning, even at this hour you don't have to touch your gas pedal because the cars behind you will push you down the road. Any later and you are looking at 1 1/2+ hrs.

I know they shipped me here to aggravate me, but it can't be proven in a court of law. Also, "word is out" that they (supervision) missed the first time but they aren't going to miss the second time. Again can't be proving. A couple of other things have be instituted since my arrival, a dress code and banning of pocket knives. I have always carried one. This has happened within 1 week of my return.

The pocket knife ban is really troublesome, because the policy states "knives AND any other objects that may be used as a weapon". The way I read it, my State issued scissors are banned. I'm not being ridiculous because I can tell you first hand that common sense is the one of the first casualties when you enter the legal arena. Especially under the state employee grievance procedure.

Quitting is not an option, at this point, because of the legal wrangling that is still going on. I want to get a disability retirement but again the state is trying their best to wittle down my court award. Court order was "Reinstatement with full back pay". However, the state thinks full back pay only includes U.S. Federal reserve notes. Nothing else. No pay step increases, no contributions to my retirement, no SS contributions. no leave-sick, annual or personal. No recovery of health insurance premiums. Nothing that is included in a State employees salary package except Federal reserve notes. So I can't apply for disability until I know how much I will receive.

My question, since I still have too work for them, what can I do to protect myself from these vindictive bureacrates? Video, tape recording (both with their approval)? Have them write down everything?

Any suggestions???
Thanking you in advance, Dave.

[semimba]

Aww - I know a Deputy who was in a similiar situation. He was fired during a time when a new Sheriff came to town and thought he was cleaning up the department (loosely meaning, putting his own cronies in place). After 2 years, the civil service commission ruled in his favor and he was hired back with full step benefits including retirement, etc. (and back pay). He too was scared of a very powerful Sheriff. The good news is that he had a great attorney who informed the Sheriff up front that he was going to monitor his client and the interaction of the dept. If they felt that the Deputy was being punished unfairly, then they would file a claim against the county. Now that the presidence had been set - (in this case, the country losing its case against the Deputy) - any other action against the Deputy would be considered retribution (that would lead to severe civil penalties).

Tell your attorney of your concerns and ask him or her for advice on how to deal with vindictive supervisors. Keep a notebook and write down times and dates of any actions (both positive and negative) with supervisors. If you feel that you are being unfairly treated, have your attorney make a "friendly" call to the powers that be. Nothing puts the fear in god to civil servants more than the fear of being personally sued (which can be done if you can show a civil rights violation or gross misuse of power - the former Sheriff had to cash out part of his personal pension to pay for his misuse of power)

[cbg]

If you have an attorney it's really not appropriate for anyone here to be advising you. Your attorney knows all the facts of the case; we do not.

[wwy]

It would be inappropriate to consult another attorney.
I see nothing inappropriate about this. Of course his attorney has all the facts. Nothing wrong with sharing other experiences, if I were in his shoes I'd be interested to know the story just posted.
People do that. With and without attorneys.
It's actually VERY helpful to people.

[ElleMD]

Having lived in Southern Montgomery County for a decade or so, I can sympathize with the traffic situation but that falls far short of retaliation. Positions in that part of the state are highly sought after and given the general state of traffic in MD, complaining about it is not going to get you far. Housing prices across the state are insane, but they are insane for everyone, not just you.

If your reinstatement was court ordered, your agency has to comply. They don't get to choose how they do so. If those who testified were guilty of perjury, then your attorney should really be persuing this.

As for filing for disability retirement, you may do so if you have at least 5 years of qualified service. You needn't wait until you have the back pay award as the state retirement agency is the one who calculates what you are owed and they can make adjustments if necessary. As it is a separate agency that handles retirement, you should have no trouble filing. There is no penalty for filing even if you aren't found to qualify. You can file either through your agency's retirement coordinator or directly with the agency in Annapolis. Bear in mind that just having a disabilty or medical condition is not enough to qualify, it must limit your ability to perform the job you have as well as a range of similar jobs.

[cbg]

I'm afraid I still disagree. The attorney has access to all the facts; we have access to a few paragraphs worth, filtered through the eyes of someone who is hardly unbiased. One of the things responders on message boards have to be constantly aware of is that fact that any answer they give is only as good as the information they have; also that people go "shopping" for the answer they want, often deliberately or accidently presenting the "facts" of the case so as to guide the responder into giving the answer they want to hear.

I have this nightmare about providing an answer to someone based on inaccurate information provided; having the poster decide they like my answer better than the one their attorney gave them; and making a decision that ultimately hurts them because they didn't listen to their attorney.

For that reason, I make it a point not to respond to questions where the poster indicates there is already an attorney involved. While I will not stop others from answering if they choose, I hope that other responders will remember that this is not a chat room for sharing experiences; that every situation is different, and that the poster's attorney is in a FAR better situation to guide the poster than we are.