"...one of the clauses in Title VII’s anti-retaliation section is characterized as the “participation clause”. This particular clause provides that an employer may not retaliate against an employee because the employee has participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII. The court went on to explain that this language had to be interpreted in the broadest possible way to provide the most protection for those people participating in EEOC actions.
...the appeals court stated, “We fail to see how this language places the kind of obligation on the employee that the district court here imposed – the obligation to resort only to honest and loyal conduct in advancing a claim unless the employee proves that it is necessary to resort to other means.”
The appeals court therefore ruled that the disclosure of unredacted medical records was protected...
...actions by employees as they participate in EEOC proceedings, even when those actions may appear egregious on the surface, may nonetheless be considered “protected activity.” Once an activity is considered protected, an employer will be required to provide a legitimate and facially nonretaliatory reason for its adverse action."
http://www.sulloway.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=212
.
.
My confidentiality and anonymity were compromised.
From Greg's book;
Management limited/censored my actions.
Wells Fargo wouldn't admit to wrongdoing.
Wells Fargo retaliated.
The US regulatory infrastructure has been compromised and wouldn't do anything.
FINRA didn't act on Envision, an ongoing fraud and violation of multiple rules and securities laws, in which I was being asked to recommit fraud on my clients.
Members of Congress wouldn't help.
The NC State Board of CPA Examiners retaliated.
The NC State Securities Division found merit and filed forward into the black hole of federal regulators.
The news industry wouldn't report it.
I believed my family was in physical danger, as my anonymity was compromised.
.
.
"The Tenth Circuit holds that an employee's sending copies of a patient's private medical records to the EEOC -- to substantiate a claim of disparate treatment -- constitutes "protected activity" under the "participation" prong of the anti-retaliation section of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and the ADEA.
Though another employee had previously disclosed Epworth Villa records and avoided terminated, the difference was that the records at stake there were not medical records, but logs of patient activity that were not covered by HIPPA."
http://www.employmentlawblog.info/2008/08/vaughn-v-epworth-villa-no-07-6005-10th-cir-aug-19-2008.shtml
.
.
I didn't release any personal information on any of my clients to the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment