DO NOT File Your Own Charge of Discrimination

Lately, I have been meeting with many individuals regarding pending discrimination charges with the EEOC and MCHR.  I commend these individuals for taking the initiative to do good research about discrimination procedure and take the first important step to having their employment issues heard.  Filing a discrimination charge is always stressful and time consuming.

That being said, these pro se filed charges are always too short, lacking in detail, and overall ineffective at mounting a proper case.  It is imperative that your discrimination charge tell a detailed story that compels the investigator to delve into the relevant nooks and crannies that house the important facts surrounding the treatment that motivated the unlawful conduct, which led to the filing of charges.  You must provide specific facts and allegations that guide the investigator to the proper destination.  Irrelevant or superfluous information should never be given.

In fact, I almost never see positive results from discrimination charges that originated pro se.  Involving legal counsel from the outset increases your chances of a favorable outcome exponentially.  We offer affordable consultations for discrimination cases, so there is very little risk in getting our opinion.  If you think you may be the subject of unlawful workplace treatment or harassment, let’s talk about it.  Retaining an employment lawyer will likely significantly increase your chance of prevailing.

Contact a St. Louis Wrongful Termination Attorney.

Wadler v. Bio-Rad: In-House Counsel as Whistleblower

Last month, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered a verdict awarding $8 million in damages to the former general counsel (Sanford Wadler) of Bio-Rad Laboratories, a life-sciences company headquartered in the San Francisco area.  Wadler claimed that he was wrongfully terminated and retaliated against for reporting his suspicion to an audit committee that Bio-Rad had violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).  One topic at issue was whether Wadler could use documents and information protected by attorney-client privilege to put on his case against his former employer.

The Court found that Bio-Rad waived its claim to attorney-client privilege, and therefore, the Court admitted the evidence, overruling Bio-Rad’s objection.  In its ruling, the Court noted that other items provided by Bio-Rad during the case’s discovery phase contained a presentation, a complaint, and other communications that should have been protected by the attorney-client privilege.  And, in providing these during discovery, Bio-Rad expressly waived its claim to privilege.  By doing so, this opened the door for Wadler to use otherwise privileged information that bolstered his claim at trial.

Additionally, the court noted another important takeaway.  One of the reasons Bio-Rad gave for Wadler’s employment termination was that he failed to perform his job adequately.  The Court stated that this reason created an implied waiver to the privilege.  So, even if the Court had ruled that Bio-Rad had not expressly waived privilege by offering the above discovery, the fact that Wadler was fired for failing to perform his job adequately would have been enough to overrule the objection.

If you are company management, this case should serve as a warning that in-house company counsel shouldn’t be treated differently from other potential whistleblowers.  This creates yet another reason for companies to rely more heavily on outside counsel, as their rights and position as non-employees of the company are much different.