|
Post by shoregurrl on Jul 2, 2009 17:46:49 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jul 3, 2009 3:44:37 GMT -4
This is nothing new for any Police Department. I give this woman credit for standing up even though she is late in doing so. The I.I.D. Division was started in or about 1967. Most of the men assigned to the I.I.D. were yes men for the Bose's, and did what they were told. Citizens should be aware that Police Departments will not admit they are wrong even if they're caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Their job is to bull sh_ _ the public into thinking they are looking out for our best interest. If they were on our side the crime would not be so bad. I would advise this woman to get a bullet proof vest, and never travel alone. Everyone knows THE BLOCK, and what goes on. The Police Building is on THE BLOCK. What does that tell you?
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jul 3, 2009 7:22:49 GMT -4
Who is the whistle blower and who is the retaliator in this? Traditionally: - Party A discovers Party B has been doing something wrong and brings that wrongdoing to light.
- Party B doesn't like this and retaliates against Party A through dismissal or other harassment.
- Party A has a valid claim that the dismissal or harassment occurred only because of the wrongdoing they made public.
So another way of looking at this case is: - The department had a reason to dismiss Woodson-Branche
- Woodson-Branche didn't like this and is now making accusations against the department
- Does the department not have a valid claim that these accusations are being made only because Woodson-Branche was dismissed?
I believe that most whistle blower non-retaliation laws protect an employee from harassment or dismissal after the employee makes a complaint against their employer. In this case, Woodson-Branche had already been dismissed before she began complaining. Unless she is claiming that her dismissal was in retaliation for issues she raised while she was an employee (maybe she is but I didn't see where the article stated it), this doesn't seem to be a retaliation case.
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Jul 3, 2009 13:32:57 GMT -4
This whistleblower is Woodson-Branche. She was supposedly brought in to audit and discipline (among other things), and when she attempted to do so (and not just be a "Yes man") she was terminated. Note that the police dept refused to publicly state the reason for her termination. Only 2 months AFTER she was terminated (again, the police have still refused to state the reason for her termination) the police dept now states that she altered documents; thereby harming her credibility in any formal complaints she had already made or was in the process of making against the dept.
Woodson-Branche is Party A (attempted to correct the discovered wrongdoing,) and the police dept is Party B, or in this case the retaliator.
"Party B doesn't like this and retaliates against Party A through dismissal or other harassment. " The other harassment is the accusation of document altering 2 months after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jul 4, 2009 7:22:35 GMT -4
The details are important. Not even Woodson-Branche made a claim that she was fired for whistle blowing. She finally claims she was let go after complaining about a contractor brought in to help reduce caseload. Could be whistle blowing, could simply be complaining, but it's interesting that in everything she is doing to hit back against the Dept. she apparently never used the word "retaliation."
It is likely that the Dept. is aware that if they publicly discussed the reason Woodson-Branche was fired she would sue them. The employee's privacy is protected in such situations.
The Dept. didn't say she was fired for altering documents, the police union and the defense attorneys made that claim. Who knows why this accusation came about two months after she was fired. Perhaps it took that long for the paper to become interested. But again, it was not the Dept. that made that claim, the Dept. has refused to comment.
It is truly a shame that she did not make her concerns known back before she was fired and could make a difference. Waiting until after she was fired raises the possibility that these only became concerns because she was fired. Airing them now could be seen as an attempt to retaliate against the Dept.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jul 4, 2009 18:22:19 GMT -4
flagar 25.......The only thing that matters is if she is telling the truth.......Like most Government workers who blow the whistle, when you point out the problem, you become the broblem....Stacey Bernstein rides alone for pointing out corruption, but it ain't over tit it's over. Go git them girl.
|
|