Fired, and I still don't know why. . .

[Seanette]

I've heard of career-limiting moves, but career-immolation moves are so seldom seen in the wild.

[sstabeler]

frankly, at this point, the supervisor in question should probably be dusting off his CV. He not only screwed up, but he lied to his superior, in an obvious way, in a way that both would naturally irritate his superior (by being prejudiced against workers who are also in the military when his boss has a kid in the military) and forced his superior to admit- in court- that he hadn't thought there was enough evidence to terminate. plus his actions actually opened the Agency to legal liability.

Yeah, in short, I have very little doubt they'll be going over the Supervisor's actions with a fine-toothed comb, looking to see if the Supervisor can be fired. (and if not, it's probably only a matter of time while they give him enough rope)

[SimonF12009]

Looking forward to December

[Argus]

I think that Supervisor had better start worrying about his job.

That thought is so obvious that it could relate to silverstaff's "I am not going to give details until this case is over" comment.

[BPFH]

Now I am going to be looking forward to December even more. Get the popper ready, someone grab the beers.

Give me enough notice and I'll get a corny keg (5-gallon) of good stuff.

I think that Supervisor had better start worrying about his job. Lying to Director would have been bad enough, but doing it in an easily exposed way is worse, doing it in a way that embarrassed Director is WAY worse, and we won't even talk about doing so in a way that exposed the State to liability...

[Gilhelmi]

Oh, it's worse than that.

Now I am going to be looking forward to December even more. Get the popper ready, someone grab the beers.

[Jay 2K Winger]

Glad to hear things are looking better for your situation, OP, and glad to hear that your former supe is now in the proverbial hot water with the Director.

[eltf177]

So Supervisor not only lied to Director (leading to Director signing off on your termination based on incomplete and falsified information) but now this is all coming out IN COURT!

This makes Director look like an idiot at best. And saying Supervisor is in big trouble is like saying the Titanic sprung a small leak. Low performance evaluations are the least of this clown's problems right now...

Supervisor had best resign now before more

[silverstaff]

DOOOOM, as prophecy foretold, "those that cross the Director shall not pass".

Sounds like your former supervisor just crossed the Director. No matter the outcome of this case, poor performance reviews are in his future. I have the feeling that if you win though, things will be far more "unpleasant" between supervisor and Director.

December is going to be interesting. I will keep praying for you my brother.

Oh, it's worse than that.

I am not going to give details until this case is over, but at that hearing, he saw some evidence he really didn't like. He had to sign off on the termination, he saw evidence that the memorandum giving a list of reasons for the termination was. . .heavily embellished and in one case they actually cited something I did as a cause for termination. . .when I was able to present text messages from my supervisor explicitly giving me permission for that action, and then they turned around literally a few days later and used that as justification for termination in an internal memo.

So, not just the issue of military duties which is the legal crux of the case, but he saw that the information he was given about the reasons for dismissal was not entirely honest. That on it's own isn't legally actionable, but it makes it clear to the Director that beyond the military issue, my former supervisors were not being honest with him.

[Gilhelmi]

The Director was NOT happy when he heard about how I was treated, the fact that he'd mentioned in passing before the hearing how his son was a Marine probably didn't help. He was trying to remain professional, but it was clear he didn't like hearing about what had happened.

DOOOOM, as prophecy foretold, "those that cross the Director shall not pass".

Sounds like your former supervisor just crossed the Director. No matter the outcome of this case, poor performance reviews are in his future. I have the feeling that if you win though, things will be far more "unpleasant" between supervisor and Director.

December is going to be interesting. I will keep praying for you my brother.

[eltf177]

Glad to hear this! Best of luck!

[Tee]

Until now, I've always hated that there are certain laws that place the burden of proof on the accused, rather than the accuser. Now... not so sure...

Glad it's working out for you, this whole scenario was just complete petty bullshit, and I still don't understand why having an employee in the Guard is a bad thing, sounds great to me!

[silverstaff]

A cross-examination that ended like the one in "A Few Good Men" would have been more entertaining, but this was probably the best realistic outcome.

Presumably, the supervisors claimed you weren't, despite your military status.

Reporting to whom? I hope not the same supervisor as before. (Although from the sound of things, he is now in hot water with the Director.)

Oh, and do you still have that shirt you mentioned earlier in this thread?

Yes, in the e-mails, my supervisors told the Director I wasn't in any protected class.

I specifically have requested in prior motions that I wish to be be assigned to another office of that agency in the state that is within commuting distance (there are easily 3 that I can think of within a one hour commute of my house), as I feel that sending me back to that same office may create a hostile work environment.

I still have that shirt, it's sitting in a drawer in my dresser in my bedroom. Upon reinstatement I plan to wear it my first day back on the job.

Also, yes, I had thought of the "A Few Good Men" bit too beforehand, if I'd have to try to get my former supervisor to actually admit it on the stand (the fact that my former supervisor bears at least a passing resemblance to a middle-aged Jack Nicholson does NOT help), and I was nervous at the prospect of it coming to that. This really is the best realistic outcome, because both the judge and counsel for the state admit that the law is very strongly on my side, and the Judge wants me to clarify a few technical points about my military service, and counsel for the State is basically begging the court to reconsider its prior ruling because it pretty much sinks their case and they admit it in court.

[Argus]

A cross-examination that ended like the one in "A Few Good Men" would have been more entertaining, but this was probably the best realistic outcome.

and wanted to know if I was part of any "protected class" before he approved the termination.

Presumably, the supervisors claimed you weren't, despite your military status.

is to reinstate me to [AgencyName] as an Officer, at my prior pay grade

Reporting to whom? I hope not the same supervisor as before. (Although from the sound of things, he is now in hot water with the Director.)

Oh, and do you still have that shirt you mentioned earlier in this thread?

[silverstaff]

So if the state loses, will you get to come back to the force?

Yes.

The relief I've requested, and that's within state law for the judge to grant, should the judge rule my termination was unlawful, is to reinstate me to [AgencyName] as an Officer, at my prior pay grade, with seniority and regular pay raises as if I had never been fired. . .plus back pay from the time of my termination to my reinstatment (minus any unemployment benefits I have received), which would be a five-figure sum by now.