Time Since 8 July 2010: Years Days Hours Mins Secs
Click here to see more about these counters
top banner

ADVICE REGARDING USERRA VIOLATIONS - CLICK HERE!

Preface Events Investigation Conclusion

168 Days: Next Chapter

By Ken Snyder

When I wrote 7 January 2011 and End Game, I will admit that things didn't look good. However, I'm not the type to tuck my tail between my legs and crawl back home -- especially when comes to being wronged. If those involved with this at BPU thought that about me, they're dead wrong and I couldn't wait to prove it. I posted the most important documents to date on the "FACTS" page, and after looking at them again it just fueled my anger and refilled my resolve to see the guilty exposed and forced to answer for their actions (or inactions).

Let's be perfectly clear: I have no aspirations of returning to BPU. Given what I've seen of their internal workings, ethics are only important when it comes to where you're sleeping, who you're related to, and possibly who wants to give you a gift. It's perfectly OK to fire someone and not even have the integrity to tell them what for. If I was re-hired, what would prevent them from concocting up another set of ridiculous charges and secret evaluations to can me again? With the level of integrity shown, I don't even think I could feel safe around some of my co-workers (NOTE: in the entire time I was at BPU I NEVER felt unsafe with any of my direct co-workers). So this is geared towards exposing the "closed door" society and vindicating my name.

BPU might have been able to convince the Department of Labor investigators that firing me was not related to my National Guard service, but they have failed (as of this time) to explain their actions in even a plausible manner. There are some things I'm fairly certain of:

  1. Eric Clark made out an exaggerated evaluation, and at times outright lied about my abilities.
  2. This evaluation may or may not have even existed prior to 8 July 2010 -- with the rather suspicious circumstances surrounding the file itself (as noted on the "FACTS" page), it's hard to tell.
  3. The evaluation is dated 21 June -- right in the middle of the time I was away on ANG duty.
  4. On 8 July, no actual mention of this evaluation was made. In fact, no factual evidence was presented at all -- only "I see a trend, and I don't like what I see."
  5. 8 July 2010 was less than two weeks after I returned to BPU from being off for two weeks on ANG duty.
  6. Clark had to "return and explain what just happened" to DeGraeve after escorting me to the parking lot -- although you would think that he would have known what was going to happen IF he had assisted in filling out the third evaluation dated 21 June 2010.
  7. It took the Department of Labor investigator asking for my personnel file for it to be sent to me, although I sent TWO REQUESTS to BPU for it. Had the Department of Labor investigator not asked for it I still might not know about this third evaluation.

My options? Not sure yet -- I am going to have all the evidence I've collected reviewed by some human resources professionals with a prominent employer in town, wait for the Department of Labor's letter (that will conclude their "investigation") and get a copy of their file as well as review other legal options. Someone mentioned defamation of character, another questioned if BPU's own policies regarding evaluations were followed in this matter. One thing I do know: this is far from over.

 

Next: 9 April 2011 - A Watershed Moment
To return to the index page, click here.

The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.