The
second part of this article is a little more lengthy than most yet
the material revealed required both depth and description with the
posting of relevant documents.
On the next day I told Assistant
Manager Lynn Walbourne that I had something serious to talk to her
about. In the office I dropped the four UPC labels on the desk and
recounted the whole thing with Kirsten Aplin. I explained how I had
given Store Manager David Camilleri copies of all the invoices
regarding the fraudulent invoices by the produce manager. Walbourne
then told me she did not know that I had given Camilleri those
invoices. Questions were mounting up and smelling worse than rotting
apples so I told Walbourne that I had sent all the information to
Vice President of Operations Tom White. Walbourne's eyes stared at
me for several uncomfortable seconds, then said she would investigate
this herself now and get back to me. With all that had happened I
expected this to be nothing more than a lie.
My
work environment became very, very tense on a daily basis from this
point on. Staff were told not to speak to me, others were questioned
after they were seen talking to me by department managers. In early
September of 2015 I was called into the office, this time with David
Camilleri and District Operator Craig Gawley. As I sat down I took
my recorder out in front of Craig Gawley's face. Gawley said that I
brought a very serious issue to their attention, that it took courage
to do it, but now it was no longer my business, they would handle it.
He also said that he was the D.O. and if I need to speak to anyone I
should speak to him not the V.P., Tom White. Craig
Gawley had also said that there would be nothing on my record
relating to this matter. As I walked out of the office I could smell
the cans of white wash yet I simply could not understand why.
Produce Manager Angela Ciestak committed fraud and Seafood Manager
Kirsten Aplin had gone further; not only had she committed fraud she
had attempted to have me commit an act I would immediately be
terminated for. It was a criminal act, Craig Gawley knew it, David
Camilleri and Lynn Walbourne knew it, and both Human Resources and
Loss Prevention would have known it. Nothing made any sense at all.
Sobeys' Code of Business Conduct and Ethics had been breached, in
fact more than breached, it was mangled.
Each
day I came to work with Marilyn Manson's The
Pale Emperor pumping
into my ears. The defiance in both the singer's voice and lyrics
helped to strengthen my mind to handle the stress of the coming nine
hours. On October 6th
2015 I came into work several hours earlier as we were to have a
school tour and I would need time to prepare the special treat for
the kids. A very somber David Camilleri asked me to come to his
office, in the office was another individual. I was introduced to a
Tim Gingrich, Director of Human Resources, he said that I was
terminated by Sobeys and as he read out the letter all I heard in my
head was absolute relief that I outlasted everything. Tim Gingrich
handed me the letter, Camilleri looked as if he was going to put his
hand out to me. I grinned and walked out the door. I looked at the
letter handed to be by the Director of Human Resources and noticed
there was no letterhead, it was a blank sheet of paper with some
words on it and Camilleri's signature. True professionalism at its
best. I walked downstairs, threw my apron into the air, collected my
recipes, said good-bye to some friends and walked out the door
feeling relief and freedom.
The termination letter had
conditions attached to it so I was somewhat handcuffed till January
2016. Within days of being terminated the steps of my response were
discussed and formulated. As far as wrongful dismissal went I had
all that I needed: recordings, documentation proving fraud, customer
statements, witness statements and staff testimonials. Yet I wanted
more and now seeing how far the management of Sobeys was willing to
go I knew I would get more.
As the constraints of the
termination were lifted in January, I prepared phase one. First to
come was a complaint filed with the Human Resource Professional
Association (HRPA), of which Kelly Turner had to be a member of.
Kelly Turner's actions were irregular enough to warrant the
complaint. I fully understood that the process with an
industry self-regulatory entity would take some months to complete.
In addition to this being time consuming I had no real trust in any
self-regulating organisation. Experience had proven that these
self-regulating entities rarely take the high road which I had stated
in the opening of my complaint letter. Yet I hoped to get something
for my investment and at the end of it I found myself grinning like a
green suited leprechaun sitting at the end of a rainbow.
My
original complaint form with attachments to the Human Resource
Professional Association was signed a few days after Valentine's Day,
on February 18th
2016. It took a little time but I received a response from the HRPA
dated March 18th
2016, signed by Alicia Lockey, CHRL, Regulatory Process and Special
Projects Specialist. Ms. Lockey also sent a complaints process FAQ,
and a copy of the HRPA's Rules of Professional Conduct, which I
already had. And so the games began.
The complaint before the HRPA was
relatively simple in nature. Supporting evidence was provided so as
not to present a hollow or baseless set of allegations. At the core
of the complaint was the fact that Kelly Turner, HR Manager for
Sobeys breached the rules of professional conduct in the manner which
she claimed to have conducted an investigation relating to reports of
workplace harassment. In addition to the harassment issue,
descriptions of the fraud committed by the two department managers
had been presented, explaining the lack of action by the Store
Manager, his Assistant Manager, District Operator or even the VP
(although we know what VP's do, they de-li-gate, not do).
I
understood from the beginning that a copy of my complaint would be
sent to Kelly Turner and for that reason I had to ensure that I did
not give too much away. After reviewing my complaint Turner would
have thirty days to respond. It was that response that I anticipated
would provide additional material to what I had already stockpiled.
My anticipation was paid for in aces, (I have probably messed up that
popular saying). As a complaint mine was five pages long; their
response 97 pages. It was a document with one goal, to destroy the
reputation of an individual, and as one respected friend with twenty
five years in the Human Resource field said, “WOW!
They (Sobeys) sure know how to spin things … that document must of
cost them $$$$ even though a lot of it was fabricated.”
Kelly
Turner did not use a private lawyer as I would have expected, instead
she gave me a monstrous gift. This response was prepared by one Alix
Herber of Fasken Martineau, a Toronto law firm. In her opening Alix
Herber states, “We
are counsel for Sobeys Ontario (Sobeys) the former employer of Mr.
Alexander Davidoff, the Complainant, and write on behalf of Ms. Kelly
Turner of Sobeys in response of your letter dated March 18, 2016
addressed to Ms. Kelly Turner.” Now
it was no longer Turner or Craig Gawley or David Camilleri acting as
individuals, it was the corporation of Sobeys Ontario and therefore
the corporation of Empire Company Limited.
Alix
Herber of Fasken Martineau continues in paragraph 3, “We
would also respectively request that the Complainant be advised of
the confidentiality of this process and not
permitted
to
post
these documents on his blog or anywhere publicly, including on social
media.” It
would seem that Alix Herber had not reviewed the the HRPA Complaint
form, there is no written mention of confidentiality anywhere. Alix
Herber as a lawyer would also be aware of freedom of speech and
freedom of the press, but then Ms. Herber and Ms. Turner had other
things on their minds I guess. Alix Herber finishes this paragraph
with, “We
would also recommend that any new issues be canvassed with the
Complainant directly without
providing
a
copy
of this written Response.”
It
is quite understandable why Ms. Herber and Ms. Turner would not want
me to have a copy of the response. In relation to being “permitted
to post,” the opening page of the response follows this paragraph,
and more to come.
Sobeys
painted a picture of an aggressive mental case running around their
store frightening staff and threatening management. The goal of
Kelly Turner and Alix Herber for Sobeys was plain and simple which
explained the reasoning behind submitting material which had no
relevance to my complaint. Yet in a court of law it is the evidence
that I would need but would not normally have access to even through
an Affidavit of Documents, and for that reason I thank both Ms.
Turner and Ms. Herber of Fasken Martineau.
A ten page letter began the
defamation and attack on my character, followed by 87 more pages
under Tabs 1 through to 17. Issues outside my workplace were brought
forward which had no bearing on my work or my performance, in fact no
employer has a right to comment on an employee's activities outside
their work environment. Still that was not anything Turner, Herber
or Sobeys cared about.
It is understandable that such a
high priced lawyer would look to smear my reputation when potential
evidence against her client was as strong as mine. Heck you see it
in the movies all the time, this was real life though with real
consequences, after all an actor will walk away even after the
execution of a death penalty. In the rush to smear me, in Tab 5,
Turner and the Sobeys lawyer released private and personal
information relating to two employees of the Scott Street Sobeys
store.
The
Employment Standards Act, under the Protecting Employee Privacy,
states, “Do
not disclose an employee's information to anyone (other than
government agencies and benefits providers) without first securing
the employee's permission.” (Keeping and protecting employee
records. The Ontario Employment Standards Act, MaRS). I
would expect Kelly Turner has some understanding of this Act, and if
not definitely Alix Herber should, being from such a prestigious law
firm. Maybe I am wrong in such an assumption.
Tab 5 has personal information on
one past employee and one current employee, the latter relating to
his alleged mental health. This individual made it clear that under
no circumstances was he aware of this breach of his personal
information. He has been given copies of the pages that relate to
him, which are hand-written notes by Kelly Turner. This information
has been shared by Turner in this response with a third party, namely
the HRPA, who have no legal right of access to this information.
Things
don't end with this breach of the Employee Standards Act, actually
Tab 5 has a wealth of information, of evidence. All the material in
this Tab relates to an investigation that Kelly Turner did in 2014
over a harassment issue with a silly young man trying to impress his
equally silly girlfriend. During that investigation Turner has notes
on interviews with supposed witnesses. One such witness was Lori
Marsh, the Engagement Champ, the same one who walks around the store
telling staff that all discussions with her are confidential. Lori
Marsh, it appears, volunteered information to Turner and Store
Manager Camilleri regarding what she claims to be things discussed
with her, a copy of the notes by Turner are posted here. In addition
to Lori Marsh another so-called witness was spoken with who said her
statements were only “second
hand.” How
does such an 'experienced' Human Resource professional put on record
a second hand account of anything? As you can see though, Turner
did.
As one reads Tab 5 through many
questions arise, but one in particular has always intrigued me. Did
Turner and Camilleri go out to canvas staff to see who was willing to
provide statements, or did these people, like Lori Marsh, voluntarily
come to Turner and Camilleri? It is an interesting question and has
serious bearing on this response later. There are two other points
in Tab 5 that relate further down the line. First is the fact that I
was watched and details of who I spoke with, even for how long are on
record. Staff had been questioned as to what I was talking to them
about and even advised by department managers not to speak with me –
I have statements on that. Yet after I was terminated I had
become a customer, a member of the public. To have this continue is
a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Although Tab 5 had provided a
plethora of usable information that I would not have had otherwise,
some points do stand out and scream for attention. The next point
has serious ramifications on the issues of the August 2015
interrogation and eventual dismissal. Turner's notes in Tab 5 state
she reviewed the video of the Chef's Station, it appears from the
formatting of the notes that Turner even formulated questions after
viewing the video. Everything here indicates that the security video
had a good line of sight around the Chef's Station. Even when Bakery
Manager Shari Chastelet commented later in August 2015 that she
thought she was looking for a shoplifter she had not stated any
obstacles to the line of sight. Yet contradictory statements were
later made relating to the harassment report by me.
Aside from Tab 5 one other stands
out, with statements made by Assistant Manager Lynn Walbourne which
are presented in Tab 15. Here Lynn Walbourne makes comments relating
to August 26th 2015 where she claims, “I questioned
Alex about the binders and folders he had in his chef's station
drawers.” The first question that comes to mind is where did
this statement by Walbourne appear prior to the response? Was it on
my employee file which I was not given access to even when I made a
written request to review it? More alarming is the intentional
omission of fact about the situation.
Walbourne's statement is in two
parts, on two pages one signed, the other not signed. She claims on
the signed paged that she questioned me about binders and folders
then claims I had said or made a statement to her. On the unsigned
page the date is incorrect, the fact that she searched my station and
the reason changed, Walbourne also claimed that I made a statement
relating to Human Rights that is wrong. The facts were simple, on
August 26th 2015, after the interrogation by Turner and
company, Lynn Walbourne at 12:42 pm came to search my station in full
view of customers and staff. On the same day at approximately 1:09
pm she came back down and said, “they told you not to have it on
the floor.” Thursday August 27th, Walbourne called
me at approximately 11:43 am and asked whether I had any papers “down
there.” Then on Friday August 28th 2015 I did give her
a “booklet of papers”, it was a revised copy of the Motion Record
which Turner claimed that her legal people had called the court about
prior to this date. Finally, is it reasonable to ask whether the
second unsigned page was added some time later, explaining the lack
of signature and serious inconsistencies.
Lynn Walbourne decided to omit from
her statement the fact that she searched my station and that as she
first began the search she lied as to what she was doing. She also
omitted as to who instructed her to search my station and for what
reason. Walbourne did not find the need to mention that “the
binders” were my temperature logs, and except for one folder the
others were recipes which I cooked and worked on. Neither did Lynn
Walbourne bother to state that she searched my station for several
days or the fact that witnesses told me, who will provide testimony,
that Walbourne searched my station even before I started my shift.
When I questioned her about this her response was that she was only
signing the log binders. Were these the same “binders”
she claimed to have questioned me about? It would appear Lynn
Walbourne needs her memory refreshed by listening to her own voice.
On August 29th 2015 a
senior staff member said to me, “My God they are trying to
ostracise you.” I knew that I was in a hostile and poisoned
work environment designed to make me want to resign. The daily
stress and pressure was immense but under no circumstances would I
give in, instead, for months I made sure to record conversations and
encounters for my protection as Lynn Walbourne proved supposed
'reporting' was extremely erroneous and lacking truth or even fact,
much not even being recorded at all. In the case of Lynn Walbourne
there is no report on the morning when I gave her the UPC labels and
recounted what happened. I knew where I was working and was fully
prepared for the outcome that was ahead.
After termination I served out my
'parole' period and forwarded my complaint to the HRPA. The reason
behind my complaint has already been mentioned and the result
dissected, yet the gifts did not end there. The HRPA decided to take
the matter to a panel for review, and their final decision turned out
to be an even greater gift in some respect.
To review the final decision by the
HRPA would take a great deal of time, yet to ignore it for expediency
alone would be an injustice to this article and to a long phase of a
battle to expose the truth. As a governing body over an industry
with powers to censure and fine its members the HRPA is bound by the
responsibility of procedural fairness. The Human Resources
Professionals Association of Ontario Act, 1990, under Section 4(1)(c)
gives the Board of the HRPA the specific statutory authority to
regulate and govern the conduct of members of the association in the
practice of their profession.
Its Chair, Debbie Bennett stated,
“Self-regulation is a privilege. It is our responsibility as a
regulatory body, and as individual members of HRPA, to ensure that we
regulate ourselves effectively.” These are mighty fine words
but how much do they really mean? Self-regulatory bodies have
proven time and time again that their apparent main goal is to
protect their own members rather than investigate the truth. In this
case my semblance of procedural fairness disappeared at the
Complaints Committee Panel chaired by Jennifer Cooper.
Jennifer Cooper was given an
opportunity to answer some questions but she refused to respond. In
the final decision the HRPA and Chair of the Complaints Committee
Panel basically decided that Kelly Turner had not breached their
professional standards. This panel simply took what Turner and
Sobey's lawyer had presented in the 97 page response, very little
else was of importance to Jennifer Cooper and the panel. According
to the HRPA's FAQ sheet provided by Alicia Lockey, Regulatory Process
and Special Projects Specialist, under the heading 'What process does
the CIC Panel follow?', on page 2, it states “the CIC Panel may
decide the matter requires further investigation. The Panel may
interview witnesses, to assist in the determination of facts or to
bring clarity to the circumstances. The Panel may also engage an
investigator to conduct an investigation on their behalf.” What
was brought to the HRPA as a complaint was a serious issue and my
complaint was clear and on point; the response that was submitted was
aimed to damage my reputation with most of the material irrelevant to
the complaint.
A landmark federal court decision
in Ottawa on September 2nd 2016 has provided the benchmark
that now can be referenced to in such matters. Federal Justice
Russel W. Zinn wrote in his decision under Standard of Review page 9,
paragraph 35: “Commissioner Shoan submits, and I agree, that a
harassment investigation has significant consequences for all parties
involved, and thus procedural fairness is required.”
Examining the final document from
the HRPA leaves one bemused even at some of the language, such as the
fact that I did not agree with the summary of David Camilleri's
actions as outlined in Kelly Turner's letter and that an adequate
investigation was conducted. For Jennifer Cooper, Chair of the
Panel, to make such a statement only proves ignorance of the English
language used in my complaint. Yet that on its own is not the real
issue at question. As part of the decision summary a section is
labelled 'Information Considered', and it is here that the test of
procedural fairness fails.
In paragraph 46 of the decision by
Federal Justice Zinn, he states, “in determining whether an
investigation was procedurally fair and proper. Justice Richard in Bell Canada
v Communication, Energy and Paperworks Union [1997] FCS No 207, 1997 Caswell
Nat 347 at para 31 (FCTD) articulated the test as follows: The standard of
conduct which is applicable to those preforming an adjudicative function is
different from those performing a purely administrative or investigative function. In the
case of an administrative or investigative function, the standard is not whether there
is a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the investigator, but rather
whether the investigator maintained an open mind, that is whether the investigator has
not predetermined the issue.”
It is near impossible to understand
how the HRPA decided not to review key evidence in order to make
their decision. Key to all of the issues surrounding the supposed
investigation by Kelly Turner is the audio recording of the whole
session, yet that is not part of the list of material considered by
the Panel and Jennifer Cooper. There are serious legal questions
that will require answering relating to the Analysis of Issues as
stated in the HRPA summary, some of which are best not brought up
here. Others left me with a grin such as the need to have this
heading number 3, “Did Ms. Turner engage in a retaliatory
conduct against Mr. Davidoff for initiating the harassment complaint
and for raising concerns about the conduct of other employee?”
Here and now I challenge Ms. Jennifer Cooper to corroborate my
words anywhere in the complaint process where I made this allegation
regarding Kelly Turner. How or why Jennifer Cooper came up with this
as an investigative point for consideration is difficult to
understand for now.
Further in point 3 it states,
“Documentation from Ms. Turner confirms that Mr. Davidoff was
cautioned about his food safety practices on at least one occasion
prior to his meeting with Ms. Turner on August 26 2015.” Here
is the key to it all. After two years of coming into work five days
a week, for eight hours a day, on one day I forgot, for some reason,
to put on my hairnet. Yes, a hairnet! This is omitted by Jennifer
Cooper as to what “food safety practices” I did not
follow. Yet this is somehow insignificant to Ms. Cooper.
Cooper labels this as “documentation from Ms. Turner.” What
documentation, other than a sentence in the response provided by Alix
Herber as Sobeys' counsel? This made me understand O.J. and the
black glove absurdity.
Point 3 continues to shine with
statements made by Jennifer Cooper which raise serious questions of
motivation let alone procedural fairness. Paragraph four begins
with, “Mr. Davidoff alleges that Sobeys management and human
resources staff, including Ms. Turner, harassed or intimidated him by
talking to him about concerns of the invoicing of products to his
workstation and searching his workstation.” Here Cooper takes
two separate issues – one is fraud by department managers, the
other relating to the search of my workstation – throws them
together as a mismatched sandwich and asks that it be digested
without any resulting upset.
I
had brought to the attention of management the issue of fraud
committed by two department managers. Craig Gawley, Sobeys District
Operator, was recorded calling this “a
very serious issue.”
One manager went a little further, Kirsten Aplin tried to involve me
in the fraud. Sobeys' lawyer, Alix Herber, in the response called it
an “erroneous
allocation,” although
just like a lawyer she is careful not to name which manager this
referred to, Aplin or Ciestak.
Again,
I challenge Jennifer Cooper to point out somewhere in my words that I
alleged any intimidation or harassment by anyone relating to this.
In
relation to the search, Assistant Store Manager Lynn Walbourne
somehow forgot the facts and left all of it out in her teeny
statement used by Herber in the response by, and on behalf of, Turner
and Sobeys. Cooper explains this away as, “Ms.
Turner denies the allegation and submits that Mr. Davidoff has
mischaracterized the conversations and the supervision of his
workstation.” I
have to ask which conversations did I mischaracterize, the one with
Kirsten Aplin and the UPC labels or Lynn Walbourne opening all my
cupboards and drawers with the lie of looking for napkins?
In the end the HRPA decision
summary simply leaves a multitude of questions. As a statutory body
the HRPA has an absolute obligation to conduct themselves in a manner
which cannot be questioned on issues of procedural fairness. Quoting
once again Federal Justice Zinn from paragraph 53 of his decision:
“A lack of even-mindedness
has also been found when relevant material information was omitted in the
investigation report. Canadian Broadcasting Corp v. Paul [1998] FCS No
1823. [1999] 2FC3 (FCTD0). The court there held that the failure was of such
significance that it provided evidence of bias rendering an investigation
procedurally unfair.”
There are no explanations or
excuses that Jennifer Cooper, Panel Chair, can provide to justify the
actions of the HRPA. It has been through experience that trust or
faith in self-governing bodies has dissipated over the years. At the
same time corporations in general have proven that procedural
fairness is nothing but a joke.
In recent months two other
employees of Sobeys had been terminated; one from the Fonthill store,
the other from Scott Street in St. Catharines. Both employees have
asked not to publish their names at this time for privacy reasons.
Olga worked at Scott Street Sobeys for a year, and then transferred
to Fonthill to get better hours. This individual was a hard working
woman in her mind 50's with a work ethic which had her stay longer
after clocking out for the day to get the work done. Olga was accused
of stealing a piece of chicken worth between $4– $5. Such an
accusation was devastating to this person whose honesty and integrity
was never questioned.
She was suspended from her duties,
then Loss Prevention was brought in to question her. Theft would
never be an option for Olga even if she was hungry. During
questioning she was able to prove that she paid for the chicken
piece. Front end security video proved it and the fact she used her
bank ATM card to pay for it proved it. The loss prevention
individual, who Olga remembers as Christine, even demanded her bank
card, something that the police can't do, but the intimidation used
by this individual had no concern for what was legal or not. Even
though Olga proved without any doubt that she paid for the chicken
she was terminated. Upon termination she was also served with a No
Trespass Order for any Sobeys property, this too was an illegal act.
Her termination letter states that she breached “Employee
Shopping Policy found on page 37 of your employee handbook.”
The second incident revolves around
an employee from the Scott Street Store who had began employment with
Sobeys in May 2008. Ingrid was a cashier and also staffed the
customer service counter. Her termination also centred around a
similar reason. When I interviewed her, she explained why she was
terminated: “I took coupons off a product I didn't end up buying
and I bought it while I was working. I said so I'm being fired for
taking a coupon and they (I believe it was the loss prevention lady)
said that no it was because I no longer can be trusted.” I
asked her what was the value of the coupons, her reply, “it was
3 coupons for $2.50 I believe then – buy 3 get one free.”
No verbal or written warnings were
given to either of these two women. Yet in the response by Turner
and Sobeys lawyer Alix Herber, on page 8 it states that the issue of
fraud identified by me was investigated by “Ms. Argue from Loss
Prevention, Mr. Gawley the Director of Operations and Mr. Camilleri,
Store Manager.” It further states that “this employee
received a final warning letter.” So fraud by a department
manager is labelled as “erroneously, but improperly” assigning
cost of certain products, is rewarded with a final warning letter,
and a promotion as Manager of the Beamsville store Bakery department.
Yet two part-time, minimum wage women are immediately terminated for
a $4 piece of chicken and some two plus dollars worth of coupons.
Both women are labelled as not trustworthy by Christine Argue from
Loss Prevention. Procedural fairness did not appear to be
consideration for Sobeys or Christine Argue from Loss Prevention.
The issues outlined in these two
parts relating to Sobeys are not just systemic with this corporation
alone. A flight attendant, Mandalena Lewis, with WestJet had
reported sexual assault by a pilot. WestJet claims to have
investigated the report, although nothing had appeared to have been
done with the pilot. The flight attendant requested her employment
record, and when three months passed without response, she sent an
angry email which contained a swear word, demanding her record. She
was fired later that day for insubordination. In Hawaii, where the
assault occurred, there remains an outstanding police arrest warrant,
yet WestJet ensures the pilot does not fly any routes which would
require stopovers in Hawaii.
Raj Shoan, former CRTC
Commissioner, had filed an action with the federal court after a
mishandled harassment investigation of which he was the target. As a
result, Federal Justice Russel W. Zinn provided a landmark decision
in relation to procedural fairness which did not exist in such a
concise form in the past. Corporations had rarely shown concern for
their employers, although it is not easy to understand the motivation
behind their actions. In the end it is up to individuals to stand up
and fight for the truth.
The action taken by Sobeys is clear
for its intent, Kelly Turner and Sobeys' counsel Alix Herber of
Fasken Martineau, set on a course to maliciously attack and tarnish
my reputation. Their response to my complaint submitted to the HRPA
was not only harsh and vindictive, it was reprehensible. All the
hard work, the achievements and loyalty had been wiped out, maybe
Alix Herber should have read the Fasken Martineau blog post 'Punitive
Damages Awards in Wrongful Dismissals Being Aggravated? The HR
Space', by David T. McDonald, Vancouver, April 4, 2013. The opening
paragraph states: “The employer's conduct in the course of
termination must be proven to be harsh, vindictive, reprehensible and
malicious. Despite this high ground a number of recent trial
decisions show how courts are becoming more open to providing
plaintiff employees with awards of punitive damages.”
No comments:
Post a Comment