13 November
I need to find a lawyer that will work with me on a contingency basis, I am willing to give the law firm that represents me 40% of the settlement. Money is not my only motive for this case of forced constructive discharge, this organization needs to be exposed and hit in the pocket (where it may hurt or at least put a dent in their operations and hopefully bring about some much needed changes for everyone involved - the employees, the people that are served and the public).
I feel that once this company receives a letter from a legal firm, they will most definitely want to settle before proceeding any further, which shall make my legal expenses minimal to your firm.
Thank you so very much in advance for your assistance and continued legal support in this most distressing matter.
Please advise.
Have a wonderful afternoon and a great weekend.
Very Sincerely,
12 November
Dear Ms. Wagar:
Sure Ms. Wagar I can provide more details and I can try to answer any questions you may have regarding this situation.
What would you like for me to state?
I am at work now and shall be home later this evening, perhaps I could detail or outline what occurs in terms to how employees are treated and the overall care of the consumers?
I am NOT afraid or ashamed to speak on camera or on the phone. I did not want everything to come to this, but I must stand up, Linda and speak what I feel is just.
Linda when/IF an employee asks a question and this employer does NOT want to answer it, two things will happen, (1) the question is ignored by the HR or employer, (2) termination or a constructive discharge occurs. When the employees ask to speak with the members of the board, they are NOT given the names of the board members (if they request them) and are labeled as a "trouble maker".
Of course employees are fearful of losing their jobs and afraid to speak up.
That is when I knew that I had to take a stand.
Disparate actions are definitely taking place. For example: "IF the organization does not like LInda from Fox 4. Linda will be treated in disparate ways as compared to similarly situated employees." How said. I may or may not like you personally Linda, but I am astute enough to be able to put aside my personal differences for the better of the company and work together with you to meet the goals established by the company.
The agency knew that one man had a history of domestic violence and kept him on as an employee, until finally Mr. Otis Steen was on the local news a few months ago for domestic violence against his spouse/significant other and taken to jail - FINALLY the agency had no other option than to termination Mr. Steen. Two other employees have been known to show up to work inebriated and/or under the influence of some controlled or illegal substance and have been allowed to continue to work with consumers with mental, developmental, and/or physical disabilities. One employee had a domestic violence charge or allegation against him and although the agency knew about all of this, they named him (Harvey) "employee of the year" and continued to allow him to work with female consumers unsupervised?! Whenever the consumers complain about treatment and IF the employee is in the "IN" crowd, the complaint is normally ignored or blown off. Some employees were given bonuses, while other employees were not even aware there were bonuses being given to similarly situated employees. Any employee who openly opposes any act, policies, practices, procedures, rules, by the organization is treated in an adverse fashion. The current HR Director, Ms. Alcye Conner, has openly stated that "excessive e-mails asking questions are grounds for termination", however; when asked about clarification in what is excessive and what is not, there is no comment made. Everything is so very subjective in nature. All types of allegations are flying around and I can not comment on all of them, but I can certainly comment on what I have seen, heard, and personally witnessed. Ms. Essie Hatcher is the Program Director II or the acting director when Ms. Sharon Higney, Executive Director is absent.
This agency has a history of "getting rid" of employees who inquire in what they feel is "excessively".
This agency has contacted a person via voice mail (documentation on file) and told them "do not show up for your shift, I have your shifts covered" and then when the employee called the supervisor who left the message the supervisor did not want to speak about it and blew it off without giving a confirmation the message was true or not, this was at 9:00am. Finally at or around 4:40pm the same day, the HR department gets a message that states "Hey you are on the schedule, just come by the main office for a meeting..."
The agency gave a written warning to an employee for clocking out at 7:30am, which is the scheduled time to clock out and then to the employee's surprise one day prior to this write up a general memo goes out to all employees that states "please clock out at the time you leave and not what is on the schedule, as this is an agency wide problem", however when the employee requested that the written warning be rescinded because similarly situated employees were not written up, the employee was forced to constructively discharge or be terminated for send an e-mail asking a question?
I have some documentation and some e-mails, but I do not have the entire story. I can only tell what little I know, about this agency and their questionable business practices. This agency likes to create a hostile and intimidating work environment where questions, thoughts, suggestions, and/or ideas by employees are discouraged (unless the employees are in the "IN" group).
Everything is so subjective and while there is probably no law for being subjective, disorganized, unprofessional, and unscrupulous, this agency needs to brought to the attention of the Kansas City Regional Center and the Missouri Department of Mental Health. IF no one speaks up, no one knows what is happening. Many employees were told NOT to say anything negative against the agency when they were under the CARF certification process.
When an employee goes into the HR Department they are asked if they have any recording devices and when they are written up or otherwise disciplined the agency writes on top of the written notice, "no recording devices are allowed". That is very odd as it appears to be a clandestine attempt to cover up something. Why would one be so concerned about a recording device IF they are on the up and up? (I have documentation of this as well). The refusal to answer e-mails is proof too that this agency does NOT want a paper trail and then when or IF the agency does answer an e-mail (HR) they will NOT copy what the sender has sent, that is a great way NOT to be liable for the entire contents of the message. The HR director openly states in her e-mail that no legal representation can accompany the employee into the HR office if there is a dispute. When employees are in the HR office they are not permitted to talk very much without Ms. Conner, HR director cutting them off rudely or simply stating she does not want to hear what they are saying or she (Ms. Conner) will say "it does not matter!" The tone can be very curt at times.
Employees are not given pay increases, raises, bonuses, etc. Equally. Some employees are simply taken off the schedule IF they openly oppose certain acts, practices, rules, polices, procedures by the agency without notice and similarly situated employees are placed in the newly created slot. When this question was proposed to the HR Director, Ms. Conner refused to answer it.
Employees that have been terminated, resigned, or been forced to constructively discharge probably have some important points to state as well. Perhaps there could be website or they could call your office if they have comments to contribute? I don't know?
0 comments