Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)
Plaintiff’s Mandatory Settlement Conference Statement
Plaintiff Elaine Smith, a Workplace Safety Specialist employed at Foundation Hospital in Roseville was wrongfully terminated on January 10, 2006, in violation of public policy and Foudation’s own policies. Prior to her termination, Ms. Smith was treated in an abusive and discriminatory manner by her quasi-manager, Ethan Jones, and was underpaid compared to her male counterpart at another hospital within Foundation’s North Side group. At the time of her termination, Foundation failed to return personal property to her and, despite further requests, continued to keep her personal property. To compound its injuries to Ms. Smith, her former supervisor has made false statements which wrongfully prevented Ms. Smith from obtaining subsequent employment.
It is Plaintiff’s position that, for statutory and regulatory reasons, Foundation is obligated to follow its policies in terminating individuals who have otherwise made complaints about Foundation’s misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance. In Ms. Smith’s case, Foundation failed to properly follow its own policies…miserably. Not only did Foundation terminate the wrong person involved in the incident described below, but, in terminating Ms. Smith, Foundation failed to:
1) Provide any rule, guideline or policy which would indicate that the act was an offense subject to discipline or termination.
2) Provide any oral warning prior to termination.
3) Provide any written warning prior to termination.
4) Determine the actual severity of the alleged violation, determine any harm to the affected employee, or determine if there was any personal gain sought by Ms. Smith.
Subsequently, after Ms. Smith made a complaint about her unwarranted termination to the Compliance Hotline, an utterly biased entity ostensibly neutral but controlled by Foundation, the investigator failed to investigate Ms. Smith’s actual complaints and, instead, whitewashed the incident after a remarkably cursory investigation.
Most importantly, the person who terminated Ms. Smith, Sam White, contradicted himself regarding the reason for Ms. Smith’s termination. Initially he claimed that the reason was her printing of the document from his computer screen; later he claimed it was because she couldn’t get along with anyone. (See Part 2 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.