T
taken4aride
Guest
to start, I was terminated from my job. Of course I feel it was wrongful. This is complicated because the employer was my attorney prior to my employment and I think he took me for a ride. On the day of my termination, I had told them I was going to give my notice. well I think because the employer who was a lawyer had violated bar rules by sharing fees with me and other violations, he wrote me a horrible defaming letter of termination and they had me sign a non-disclosure, confidentiality agreement. they also had as a provision of the contract that I would be paid 80 hours compensation. When I got home and had time to read and digest the content and implications of the contract, ( i want to go to law school) I decided I wanted to terminate it. I did so in writing within 3 days certified mail, saying that I felt I signed it under duress. In the letter I stated that I felt the agreement was heavy handed and one sided and accordingly would not accept any payment at that time relative to the agreement or my termination. They responded by sending me a check for the hours they owed me + a portion of the 80 hours (25). I called them and said I was wondering if they would just give me my final check and they said they were holding me to my contract and " I should be aware that I should not speak with an attorney regarding my case." and I think I should report them to the bar. What do you think ? can someone tell me if the non-disclosure agreement is valid or are they trying to strong arm me again ? how do I apply for a job with this over my head ?
there are a couple cases which I feel apply here in a wrongful termination suit
Scholz v. RDV Sports, Inc., 1998 WL 136146 (Fla. App. 5 Dist.):
Racial Discrimination(Civil Rights): Action by white assistant coach against
owners of the Orlando Magic alleging retaliation, wrongful discharge and
refusal to contract, and defamation. The Fifth DCA held that the trial court
erred in entering a directed verdict on the plaintiff s wrongful termination
and refusal to contract claim because the plaintiff presented sufficient
direct and circumstantial evidence of racial discrimination to meet his
burden of proof. The court noted that Title VII extends protection against
racial discrimination to both minority and non-minority employees.
Therefore, the plaintiff was not required to prove that race was the sole
reason for his termination, but was only required to submit evidence
indicating that race was a motivating factor in the decision.
Racial Discrimination(Evidence): Comments made by defendant s employee
concerning plaintiff s employment are admissible where such comments were
made in scope of employment. Comments made by another employee are not
admissible where such comments concerned personnel issues which were outside
the scope of employment.
Metropolitan Dade County v. Milton, 1998 WL 104025 (Fla. App. 3 Dist.):
Whistle-blowers (Temporary reinstatement): Milton was demoted, allegedly in
retaliation for disclosures. Trial court held that Milton was entitled to
temporary reinstatement to former position pending the final outcome of her
action filed under the Whistle-blower s Act. The Third DCA reversed the
temporary reinstatement holding that the plain language of §112.3187(9)(f)
of the Whistle-blower s act applies only to discharge from employment, and
the term "discharge does not include demotion of employee in retaliation for
protected disclosure.
Here are some more shorts.......
1) discriminate against an employee or applicant based on race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age, handicapping condition, marital status,
or political affiliation;
(8) engage in reprisal for whistleblowing-i.e., take, fail to take, or
threaten to take or fail to take a personnel action against an employee or
applicant for disclosing to the Special Counsel, or to an Inspector General
or comparable agency official (or others, except when disclosure is barred
by law, or by Executive Order to avoid harm to the national defense or
foreign affairs), information which the employee or applicant reasonably
believes evidences a violation of any law, rule or regulation; gross
mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a
substantial and specific danger to public health or safety);
(9) take, fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take a personnel
action against an employee or applicant for exercising an appeal, complaint,
or grievance right; testifying for or assisting another in exercising such a
right; cooperating with or disclosing information to the Special Counsel or
to an Inspector General; or refusing to obey an order that would require the
individual to violate a law;
(10) discriminate based on personal conduct which is not adverse to the
on-the-job performance of an employee, applicant, or others;
or..................
* breaking bar rules being the disclosures.
there are a couple cases which I feel apply here in a wrongful termination suit
Scholz v. RDV Sports, Inc., 1998 WL 136146 (Fla. App. 5 Dist.):
Racial Discrimination(Civil Rights): Action by white assistant coach against
owners of the Orlando Magic alleging retaliation, wrongful discharge and
refusal to contract, and defamation. The Fifth DCA held that the trial court
erred in entering a directed verdict on the plaintiff s wrongful termination
and refusal to contract claim because the plaintiff presented sufficient
direct and circumstantial evidence of racial discrimination to meet his
burden of proof. The court noted that Title VII extends protection against
racial discrimination to both minority and non-minority employees.
Therefore, the plaintiff was not required to prove that race was the sole
reason for his termination, but was only required to submit evidence
indicating that race was a motivating factor in the decision.
Racial Discrimination(Evidence): Comments made by defendant s employee
concerning plaintiff s employment are admissible where such comments were
made in scope of employment. Comments made by another employee are not
admissible where such comments concerned personnel issues which were outside
the scope of employment.
Metropolitan Dade County v. Milton, 1998 WL 104025 (Fla. App. 3 Dist.):
Whistle-blowers (Temporary reinstatement): Milton was demoted, allegedly in
retaliation for disclosures. Trial court held that Milton was entitled to
temporary reinstatement to former position pending the final outcome of her
action filed under the Whistle-blower s Act. The Third DCA reversed the
temporary reinstatement holding that the plain language of §112.3187(9)(f)
of the Whistle-blower s act applies only to discharge from employment, and
the term "discharge does not include demotion of employee in retaliation for
protected disclosure.
Here are some more shorts.......
1) discriminate against an employee or applicant based on race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age, handicapping condition, marital status,
or political affiliation;
(8) engage in reprisal for whistleblowing-i.e., take, fail to take, or
threaten to take or fail to take a personnel action against an employee or
applicant for disclosing to the Special Counsel, or to an Inspector General
or comparable agency official (or others, except when disclosure is barred
by law, or by Executive Order to avoid harm to the national defense or
foreign affairs), information which the employee or applicant reasonably
believes evidences a violation of any law, rule or regulation; gross
mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a
substantial and specific danger to public health or safety);
(9) take, fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take a personnel
action against an employee or applicant for exercising an appeal, complaint,
or grievance right; testifying for or assisting another in exercising such a
right; cooperating with or disclosing information to the Special Counsel or
to an Inspector General; or refusing to obey an order that would require the
individual to violate a law;
(10) discriminate based on personal conduct which is not adverse to the
on-the-job performance of an employee, applicant, or others;
or..................
* breaking bar rules being the disclosures.
Last edited: