I worked for Securitas for a little over 90 days. I never received a performance evaluation, was never reprimanded, was never late. I was fired after using the company's internal complaint resolution resource to report nepotism and ethnic bias in the Torrance branch office. The pretext used to fire me was that I refused to perform my duties and I did not received that explanation until two weeks after my firing.
The way a situation begins is the way it generally ends. I was sent to the client site in my street clothes following one day of the required three day training. I was told that the client was a problem, but not why this was so. The person who had formerly occupied the position of Receptionist Guard was described to me as someone who had become too comfortable in her position. I was sent to work with minimal preparation because the client had to ok my remaining in the position and, I guess, wanted to test-drive the new hire.
I proved to be the kind of receptionist/administrative assistant the client needed and worked in my street clothes for approximately 3 weeks before being provided with three pairs of pants and an oversized man's shirt that I was told to wear every day. When I asked when appropriate shirts would be available, that information was unknown. I was told a blazer would be delivered to my worksite. I went from wearing professional dress to being required to dress like a buffoon. I wore this outfit for one day, then submitted a written complaint to the area vice-president, David Ricks.
Rather than respond to me in writing, David Ricks came to my worksite and sat talking with me for over an hour, defending the man, Andres Sojo, who had provided me with the incomplete uniform complement, bullying and humiliating me in the process. Ricks told me that Sojo was a young man with little education whom he was trying to groom and bring up through the ranks. Sojo just needed to work on his people skills and Ricks hoped I would give him another chance as he was really a very nice young man. This occurred in January.
In March, I needed replacement shirts as I had only been provided with two shirts at the beginning of February. The shirts were cheaply made of even cheaper materials and did not hold up well to frequent laundering, the fabric puckering and bubbling on the collars and cuffs. Then site supervisor Richard Fregulia requested new shirts for me before he was wrongfully terminated. The new site supervisor, Joe Menchaca, also requested shirts for me and another guard, Jeanine Malone, when he came on board. Six weeks later, neither of us had received the shirts.
I called my scheduler, Andres Sojo, the person I was told to contact for uniform needs, to request the shirts. He did not return my call. I then emailed the branch manager, Beatris Akiona, to let her know that I had contacted my scheduler about the shirts, that he had not returned my call, and to ask how long it usually takes to get replacement shirts. She replied that replacements should be received within 3 weeks and that I should contact her or another scheduler, Mike Cazares, in future for any other requests. It was now April.
On 18 April, still without replacement shirts, Robert Leahy came to the site to train the new site supervisor Menchaca. He was very impressed with the professionalism displayed by myself and the officer at the gate, so impressed that he asked Menchaca if he could have us come to his site, Neutrogena. I had to download the training information Leahy was delivering as Menchaca had not been provided with this capacity. While I completed this work, Leahy informed me that he was the assistant to the branch manager's husband. Beatris Akiona's husband is named Norman Akiona; he supervises the Neutrogena site and trains all site supervisors. Their son also worked at the site, under the direct supervision of his father. Leahy volunteered this information as if he was unaware of the Securitas policy forbidding employment of relatives, stated on page 38 of the Security Officer Handbook provided all officers at hiring.
Also provided is a card with a number to the AlertLine, the internal complaint resolution resource. After Leahy left the site, and on my lunch hour, I called the AlertLine at 1.800.93. ALERT to report nepotism and ethnic bias related to acquiring my uniform shirts. I had observed differential treatment regarding uniform provisions over the past three months. Whenever Latino officers were hired to the site, they came with full uniforms. Whenever Black officers were hired to the site, they came with partial uniform provisions. During the winter, I had to plead for over a month to get a sweater for outdoor wear.
I was given a case number and pin, the website address to update the report, and thanked for my call. This happened on 18 April. On 21 April, I was "removed" without warning or explanation. I had observed the removal of several other people from the site and I knew that was a code for fired. The branch office would never call it a termination because they didn't want to pay unemployment benefits and they would falsify reports and personnel records to make certain they did not have to pay. Removed personnel were routinely processed as voluntary quits so they would not qualify for UI benefits.
I returned my uniforms on the day I was removed because I knew of branch's habit of turning employee's names over to collection agencies without allowing them time to return company property. When I came into the office, branch manager Akiona shouted from the confines of her office, "Is she quitting?" I told the receptionist to tell her that I wasn't quitting, I was fired. She said, "Oh, no. You were just removed." I replied, "Same thing, isn't it?"
I had been told to return to the office at 1000 hours the next day. I knew that when you are terminated the employer has 24 hours to cut your final check and 72 hours after that to make sure that money is in your hands. At 0330, I called in sick and had the message delivered to my scheduler, Sojo. I called in sick for the following three days until I received my final check in the mail dated 22 April. I call the EDD to confirm that receipt of a final check meant termination rather than suspension or lay off and was told I was correct in my surmise.
On 1 May I received a certified letter from the area human resources manager, Sarah Jingco, a woman I had never heard of nor met before this, stating that I had been removed from my position because of refusing, under protest, to perform my duties. I was offered three positions at a lesser rate of pay, on graveyard or swing shift, and told that if I did not respond by 8 May, my employment status would be processed as a voluntary quit. I responded by certified letter that I at no time refused to perform my duties, but had informed the site supervisor that I was answering the telephones under protest because sharing a headset constituted a health hazard. Within the two weeks prior to my firing, all officers working in the office were required to answer the mainline phone to retreive calls from Honeywell. I told the site supervisor then that he would have to have a handset in place to avoid the health hazard. On the morning of my removal, I reminded him of the necessity to get the handset. He reported to branch only that I refused to answer the phones.
I reported this wrongful termination to the Labor Board, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Better Business Bureau, and the Department of Consumer Affairs. My complaint has been accepted by all of the abovementioned agencies, and I intend to sue for damages as this type of firing has been found to be a form of discrimination, thus a violation of civil rights.
I sent a request to Sweden's corporate headquarters requesting a neutral party to investigate this matter as it appears the AlertLine complaints go to the object of the complaints. I also called the employee relations representatives in California, but they would not return my calls. Jingco told me she could not discuss the case with me after posting on the AlertLine website that I should contact her for information about the case.
This company is scandalously corrupt and needs to be stopped in their discriminatory practices.
0 comments