This site is testimony from an employee who became a victim of a healthcare architecture firm.
The employee victim is a professional with approximately 25 years in the industry and no prior workplace incidents. The employee victim was employed by the offending firm until the firm ended that employment.
The employee victim’s position is that the offending firm decided to terminate the employment after learning the employee victim’s age. After that point, goals and workload increased. Until then, the employee victim had been a long-tenured professional without prior discipline.
The offending firm later cited coworker complaints as the reason for termination. The employee victim’s position is that the complaint concerned an innocuous compliment and that the firm used that report as an opportunity to remove the employee victim. That handling, the employee victim says, does not match the firm’s prior response to a more serious incident involving workplace violence that could endanger employees. In that earlier matter, the other employee was given a second chance rather than terminated.
The employee victim was not consulted before the decision. The employee victim’s side of the story was not sought. The employee victim was not told what was said. Termination was presented as final, without a hearing.
If the complaint did not concern an innocuous compliment, and instead alleged an offensive remark the employee victim did not make, then the employee victim’s alternative position is that the accusation was slander by the speaker and became libel if it was written or published. That question cannot be resolved until the actual statements are disclosed.
The employee victim also contends that the process did not match the offending firm’s own promise of a fair, timely, and thorough investigation. The employee victim was never interviewed.
This account reflects the employee victim’s position based on the facts known at the time of writing. If a complete record is later produced through discovery, this site is intended to be updated so that other professionals can be warned of this firm’s handling of the matter, including the performance of its HR department, with a fuller set of facts after discovery is complete.