Verizon Virginia Inc., 2011, plaintiff was fired in retaliation for his exercise of FMLA rights over a two day period when the employer had videotape evidence of the plaintiff driving, spending 30 minutes at the gym, renting videos and shopping. The employer concluded this activity was inconsistent with his claim that he had migraines on those days. Nevertheless, the plaintiff asserted that the employer’s reason for termination was a pretext for FMLA retaliation because it took the “extraordinary step” of placing him under surveillance, however the court ruled that the surveillance did not show that the employer’s reasons for terminating plaintiff were pretextual since the employer had hired private investigators at least five times in the past and the plaintiff did not prove that similarly situated employees were treated differently (Smith,
Losing a job is devastating. It causes lifestyle changes, and stress. It becomes difficult paying bills and meeting any other financial obligations. However, the Federal Government has improvised guidelines for employer’s to follow when terminating an employee. The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was put in place to prevent employers from discriminating against employees because they were indifferent from themselves. The most common discriminating factors are race, gender, and age. The Civil Rights Act, considers behaviors of such, are unjust and unethical, that are not permitted in the United States.
Sperling’s harassing conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination “against any individual with respect to his . . . terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's . . . sex.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (West 2018). Chamberlin v. 101 Realty, Inc., 915 F.2d 777, 779 (1st Cir. 1990), superseded in part by statute, Pub. L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071 (1991). Mere utterances, simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents are not actionable under Title VII. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998); Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). Furthermore, a plaintiff must show that the harassing conduct subjectively and objectively created a hostile work environment. Faragher, 524 U.S. at 787. Here, both parties have agreed that Ms. Travers could satisfy the subjective
Complainant Jordan stated that in January 2016, Respondent Cook and several others were scheduled to meet with a Contractor. Respondent Jordan sent him an email stating he could not make the meeting because he needed to pick up his wife from the San Francisco Airport. Complainant Jordan responded with a question about whether Respondent Cook could find another way to handle the situation with his wife because the meeting with the Contractor had been set for several months and it was a very important meeting.
On March 5, the principal informed the union representative that he was going to recommend against N.W. receiving tenure. When her union representative advised her that she would not be able to rely on the two favorable evaluations for employment as a counselor elsewhere, N.W. resigned. However, after consulting with a lawyer, she filed a civil rights suit in federal court, alleging that the adverse administration actions, starting with the written reprimands and culminating in her "constructive" discharge (i.e., forced resignation),
The legal issues in the case of Elaine X v. Jerry Employer involve exceptions to the “At Will Employer” doctrine and various types of discrimination and their role in the termination of the plaintiff. There are several questions that
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
Complainant contends that he was hired by Respondents as the District Manager of New England on or about May 15, 2009. At the time he filed this charge of discrimination Complainant was 59 years old. Complainant alleges that while he was employed by Respondents he did not receive any warnings or negative feedback concerning his performance and produced his personnel file to show this. Complainant contends
On February 25, 2016, at 8.18 am a MCU member reached Senior Collections representative Brenda Castro and wanted to be service on a current account. Brenda Castro expressed that the Collections department would not be able to services his current account and instructed the member to call customer service. The members stated that he was already transferred from customer service and seem to be getting annoyed with Mrs. Castro and eventually requested to speak to a supervisor. There was a brief hold and Mrs. Brenda Castro returned to provide the supervisor number and the member called Brenda a Sir and the call went to unprofessionalism whereas the member used profanity and Brenda Castro retaliated with profanity. As an employed Mrs. Brenda Castro
On November 10th, at approximately 9:40 a.m. Lawrence Tawiah, electrician dropped you off to work with Jose Gomez, electrician for the remainder of the day. During your transition between vehicles you placed your belongings behind the passenger seat in truck number 2984 and proceeded to sit in the passenger’s seat. At which time, your supervisor instructed you to drive truck 2984 for the remainder of the day. You said, “what, do you want me to drive the truck to lunch?” and closed the passenger door. Again, you were told by your supervisor to operate truck 2984 and you said, “I’ll just drive after lunch”. Your supervisor informed you for the 3rd time to operate truck 2984 at which time you exited the truck and proceeded to the driver’s side and said, “you’re just fucking up everyone’s day, aren’t you?” You got behind the wheel and said, “I’m definitely going to drive behind a school and
Smith’s actions/discrimination against Long. Kate was fired after reporting to the EEOC the harassment from Ms. Smith. Kate should not of been fired for reporting the discrimination. Due to Dracca’s action upon firing Kate, the company seems to approve of Ms. Smith’s actions. The EEOC Compliance Manual states that the person filing the complaint is “protected against retaliation by a respondent for participating in the statutory complaint proceedings even if that complaint involved a different covered entity” (Igasaki, 1998).
Plaintiff felt it was unsafe to drive the car home in the condition it was in, so he then called his parents AAA to tow his car back home at 8:41 PM. Tow truck driver said the symptoms the Plaintiff's car could suggest a bad tank of gas. The Plaintiff has provided a copy of the tow truck receipt as evidence that the car was towed. SEE EXHIBIT “50” 3/30/17 AAA Tow Receipt. Upon inspection, the Plaintiff discovered that the timing belt tensioner was loosened, fluids in the gas tank was clear and engine oil was low. After the Plaintiff recently graduated college, his cars were continually broken into and vandalized on Charter Communications' property. Charter Communications violated company policy when they failed to protect the Plaintiff's property and permitted the car vandalisms to continuously occur. Also, the local Irwindale Police Department ignored the Plaintiff's complaints because Charter Communications was unwilling to investigate the Plaintiff''s claims. SEE EXHIBIT “9” Old Employee Handbook pg 99.
Mr. Feals can tell you that a group of employees Donna Myers ,Tim Simms, Robert Godzik, Mike Niehenke maintenance employees bullied against several employees, William Franicola supervisor promotes this type of behavior. Witness Donna Myers and Mike Niehenke Making slurs and comments at morning sign in. He witness how upset I was Donna Myers and Mike Niehenke waited outside maintenance building making slurs at me. I was having a panic attack and Mr Franicola didn't want to reprimand these employees.How He was off work for 11 weeks of false allegations against him by Donna Myers after parting ways with this
This threatening behavior violates company policy. SEE EXHIBIT “9” Old Employee Handbook p. 86-87. SEE EXHIBIT “29” New Employee Handbook Harassment Free Workplace and Diversity Policy p. 1 -2. On February 27, 2016, the Plaintiff was only permitted to carpool with his coworker James, one last time in the company vehicle. After that day, the Plaintiff had to drive his own vehicle and was instructed that he was not permitted to carpool. SEE EXHIBIT “11” Can & Cannot Carpooling Emails. On March 1, 2016, Charter Communications officially notified the Plaintiff that his original assigned work location would be entirely moved from Riverside to Irwindale, over a 40 mile commute, and company vehicle would be taken away, even though it already was taken away on February 26, 2016 by Lamonea. SEE EXHIBIT “7” Email on March 1, 2016-Company Vehicle Officially Suspended by Company. This was an official discriminatory measure by Charter Communications to make it more difficult for the Plaintiff to afford the longer commute, with the intention to make the Plaintiff constructively quit his job due to the anonymous letter of complaint.