Background . The Situation Involved A 60 Year Old Building

Marcus Ashmore and Terrell Lee Green were maintenance workers for J.P. Thayer Co., Inc. under supervisor Gene Fye. After a particular incident of harassment on January 16, 2001, Plaintiffs reported Fye to Tricia Johnson, the Assistant Property Manager. At this time, Johnson did nothing about the complaint. The harassment continued, and on January 26, Plaintiffs complained to the Property Manager, Mary Frances de Rivera. In response, de Rivera verbally reprimanded Fye. This, however, did not stop Fye’s harassment. Instead of reporting the behavior to Defendant, Plaintiffs hired an attorney who wrote a letter to Defendant saying that Ashmore and Green were going to file charges of discrimination with the EEOC. On February 22, Fye was fired by Defendant. This came three days after getting the letter and about a month after the initial harassment complaints.

B. The decision-maker reconciled the legal principles involved by observing that courts has held employers liable for harassment by supervisors especially when the harassment is done by those in charge of hiring, firing, and promoting. The decision was also reach by the decision makers who considered the interactions of past sexual harassment cases, referring to its guidance in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 106 S.Ct. 2399

7/26/16 – a pre-determination meeting was held with Shane, in the presence of his Union Representative, Tom Brice, to discuss the allegation that he violated the Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities Employee Conduct Policy and Procedure #02.01.020 when he demonstrated disrespectful behavior towards his supervisor upon receiving a recent letter of suspension dated July 11, 2016.

Potter eligible for his complaint and is protected by the code as a non-unionized employee. The breach of the employment contract bounding Mr. Potter and the Commission clearly falls into the realm of constructive dismissal. The absence of proper authority and the change of terms of employment prior a settlement between the two parties, is why the case turned into Mr. Potter’s

The Aggrieved stated he received a Notice of Suspension for five work days for being Absence without Leave (AWOL) and failure to request leave with procedures by Area Manager Victor Cruz. The Aggrieved stated that his first line supervisor Margie Steward has been harassing, belittling and intimidating him since she became his supervisor. He said he took leave to care for a family member who became sick and he called in everyday he was absence. The Aggrieved said he reported the mistreatment by his supervisor to Mr. Cruz but he would ignore his repeated emails and phone calls. The Aggrieved stated he is the only African American in his work center and he is the only one who receives the unfair treatment by his supervisor Ms. Steward. The

It is also my recommendation that this incident be reviewed by administration and this report be copied and sent to Judge Mack to review before

STKD Ilmas was suspended on 05/06/16 by ASM ST ROSE, pending HR review. On 05/13/16 STKD Ilmas employment was

Employees found to demonstrate any inappropriate conduct or behavior against others may be subject to disciplinary action.

Furthermore, she is being alleged punished for something that is false! Although she was more concerned with her career, the employee’s need to know she miss them very much. During her suspension, she had the burden of worrying whether she would have my long-standing position of supervisor when she goes back to work again. The news sent her into a spiral of depression worrying about not being able to provide for her family in the case if she was fired. Her career means the world to her and she needed to know who is attacking her and why. Once receiving the email information, she defended herself and her character by responding to the initial insult. She hopes later on there will not be no retaliated by upper management for defending what she stood for. In addition to being insulted and depressed, when she goes back to work she will have to endure to a hostile work environment daily. Her crews she knows is upset because they have not heard from me, they have told her not contacted no one in Cross Mark. Ms. Waktins, have communication problems if you ask any questions when she address the group and she think you are not agreeing with her. They were continually harassing her today in regard to her performance and she felt unwanted. Their determination to relieve her of duties came about after one month of miscommunication between them and her. She

He alleged the claimant’s termination attributed to the several verbal warnings he gave to the claimant during the last two years of her employment. He states he did not document each incident but informed the Human Resources Manager, Mrs. Jessica McClellan of the claimant’s insubordinate behavior.

Although the code is not legally enforceable by TULR(C)(A) 1992 the tribunals are required to take the provisions into account when dealing with disciplinary issues. It provides a guideline which employers must follow in order for the dismissal to be just and fair. The code firstly states that necessary investigations must be held with the employee in order to establish the facts of the dispute, and should during the meeting an individual be suspended, full pay is necessary.

“At most, the complaint expressed a wish that the investigation had proceeded more quickly. That does not support a finding that [the Audit Chair] was grossly negligent. Taking the allegations of the complaint as true, the Court concludes therefore that the complaint does not allege sufficient

3. Manager who requires the sickness absence report for an employee who has triggered a disciplinary hearing scheduled for the following week

2.If you are the subordinate of Mr. Ebbers, will you comply with Mr. Ebbers? If not, define what you would do to avoid termination. If yes, provide justification. (Complaint 19301)

The main issue was whether McKee was an employee thus entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal or an independent contractor. The court held that McKee was an employee of Reirds Heritage Homes and not an independent contractor. The judge was concerned with the degree of the relationship between an employer and an employee. The main area of duties for Reids Heritage Homes was to sell houses and McKee totally engaged herself in this. Therefore, the Court concluded that McKee was an employee of Reirds Heritage Homes and was entitled to notice of employment termination and damages thereof.