On the telephone interview, the hearings officer will want to find out if you lost your job “due to no fault of your own.”

Your manager will probably claim you deserved to go, because of this stupid problem.

You should focus on these points: 1) I was never trained on how to do this the right way; 2) I would have done it the right way from now on if they had kept me and just me how to do it; 3) This is not a central part of my job duties — all my core job functions I did very well.

Also, if you were with your employer for some years and have some good performance appraisals, be sure to submit them to the hearings officer. This will demonstrate you were, in fact, good at doing your job.

Remember: never trained before, refused to train now, not an important part of your job.

Stick to those three points and you’ll get your benefits.

I had a boss that created a very hostile work environment, constantly micro-managing and nit-picking me. Even made me cry during a meeting.

In the end, I was let go for an “unacceptable performance” that day. It was seriously over something stupid. I am wondering what I can do to prepare for the interview. The guy is a sneaky bastard, I was discharged..no vacation time was paid out and this was quite a surprise.

An appellate court upheld the dismissal of her case as a matter of statutory interpretation. It found that the rules governing members of the Florida Bar were not included under the Florida Whistleblower Act because they didn’t originate from a legislatively enacted statute, ordinance, or administrative rule as 2009->Ch0448->Section%20101#0448.101″>defined by the Act itself.

In this case, Snow v. Ruden, 896. So.2d 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), an attorney who worked for a large firm was fired after she complained that her supervisor was misappropriating client funds. She first reported the conduct to the firm’s managing partner, the office manager, and the head human resource officer. They told her she was causing trouble & to leave it alone.

She then reported the misconduct to the State Attorney. When the firm found out, they fired her (she was employed under an at-will contract). She filed a lawsuit under Florida’s Private Sector Whistleblower Act, claiming that her termination was in retaliation for her refusal to join in the firm’s after-the-fact cover-up of illegal and unethical conduct.

Specifically, the diversion of client funds was an act of theft and she was ethically bound to report the illegal conduct under Rule 4-8.3 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. Once her superiors were informed, they too had an obligation to report it up the chain-of-command. In other words, Bar rules obligated her and her firm to report any serious misconduct which might affect the integrity of the profession and Florida’s Whistleblower statute should have protected her for doing so.

Wrong.

An appellate court upheld the dismissal of her case as a matter of statutory interpretation. It found that the rules governing members of the Florida Bar were not included under the Florida Whistleblower Act because they didn’t originate from a legislatively enacted statute, ordinance, or administrative rule as 2009->Ch0448->Section%20101″>defined by the Act itself.

The court’s reasoning is straightforward and their decision is based on the plain language of the laws as written. The court emphasized that its role regarding statutes is to interpret them, not extend them. It left it to the legislature to amend the statute.

That ruling was in January of 2005. To date, no bill has been introduced in either the House or the Senate on this topic. And while the Florida Bar has made minor amendments to Rule 4-8.3, none of them address this problem.

What makes this so incredibly outrageous is that the attorney she reported was later suspended from practicing law for the very misconduct she complained about. In fact, the Bar investigation uncovered even more violations (see the Florida Supreme Court’s disciplinary ruling at this link). He was later reinstated in April of 2006.

Presumably, if she had reported criminal misconduct to the police she would have been protected. But if the misconduct doesn’t rise to the level of a crime, the lesson for attorneys is either keep your mouth shut or you risk losing your job for being a trouble-maker. Violations of the rules of ethics aren’t considered serious enough to warrant Whistleblower protection, even though the rules themselves obligate an attorney to report violations.

Because the Florida legislature hasn’t seen fit to close this insidious loophole in the Whistleblower statute, it effectively allows internal office politics to trump both state law and the ethical duties of a profession whose reputation is already badly tarnished in the public eye. We ought to encourage and reward those lawyers who try to maintain the integrity of the practice.

But sadly, no good deed goes unpunished.

In Prowel v. Wise Business Forms, Inc., the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that gay employees “can prevail, if they prove their harassers were motivated in part by gender non-conformity - even if those harassers were also motivated by sexual orientation.”

In other words, if heterosexual employees are harassing gay co-workers because they’re not acting like a straight man or woman (men who are seen as being too effeminate or women who are seen as too macho), that can qualify as gender-based discrimination.

Employers cannot automatically assume that sexual orientation claims will be dismissed by a court as unprotected under Title 7. The allegations of discrimination must be evaluated in light of gender stereotypes.

This requires that the emotional distress be accompanied by, and flow from, some type of physical contact. Under that standard, verbal & emotional or psychological abuse (the typical workplace bully scenario) wouldn’t qualify.

Florida is one such state.

And a recent case illustrates just how difficult it is to succeed with a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress (see this link). Williams v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc., 877 So.2d 869 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

The court determined that the following actions by a boss towards a black employee (Williams) were NOT sufficient:

* Called him a “nigger” and “monkey” in front of him, other employees, and over the work radio;
* Repeatedly told him that he did not want his “black ass” there;
* Instructed another supervisor to “create a record” of false disciplinary related incidents for Williams so as to justify his subsequent termination;
* Did not allow Williams to work with other African-American employees because “niggers will steal if they are left to work together”;
* Falsely accused Williams of stealing;
* Constantly and persistently threatened Williams with job termination for no apparent reason;
* Directed Williams to load and unload aircraft in inclement and dangerous weather conditions, to move dangerous heavy equipment and cargo, and to work extra flights thereby deliberately eliminating his break times.

The court found this conduct reprehensible, objectionable, and offensive, but not enough to win a claim of IIED.

Of course, if you can show such overt misconduct was based on race, gender, or another protected classification, you might succeed on some other claim such as discrimination under Title 7.