Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

Yup it sure is.

This place is a sh-t hole

RE : @1vfa+1qFRENIt

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what you call an HR employee.

Ladies and Gentlemen this is what you call a DEI hire.

Just a few years ago, I would have called OP bat-$&@! crazy.
Funny how times have changed with a company whose reputation invalidates itself.

Hypocrites, as usual.

https://www.ifrahlaw.com/ftc-beat/wells-fargo-learns-that-recording-calls-in-california-can-be-costly/

The recording policy would not withstand legal scrutiny in a court of law. The company retains the authority to record all meetings without exception. The underlying reasoning is that as an employee, you are an integral part of the company and possess the same entitlements. Any attorney could potentially challenge this policy.

Candidly, you sound like a piece of work OP. There might have been some 'injustice" that started all of this, but your behavior is what spun it to these bizarre circumstances.

You got 4 years of a paycheck for doing nothing but stirring s--t.

Move on.

Making a looooooong story short:

Don't think about going to EEOC.

See how easy that was? No one has the time nor the inclination to read novellas here, least of all this one that says much about nothing.

In your next career perhaps you will be more fortunate.

Sounds like you just su-ked at your job

@qem+1qFRENIt

I dont think Conduct can request Teams texts of chats unless it reaches the lawsuit stage then logs can come from a subpoena. I was in an investigation in 2023 and I had Teams wit an employee and at no point were the logs pulled from my knowledge. I was the filer and my manager the target. In the end it was noted both sides, after witnesses were interviewed, had not been accurate in their recollections. If they pulled the Teams calls my guess is there would have been grounds to fire multiple people. One person interviewed they did not recall or were not on call when something happened, I had a screenshot of the attendees, I later spoke to this person after they left the firm and they said they just did not want to be involved so they lied, and said we were both wrong, me and the manager, in their view. I am still here and so is my former manager, I just left the team, but looking back honestly I was angry at the time I filed it, and I was part of the problem. I should have just left the team and told my manager when I left where I thought instead of going this route. I wonder what would have happened if they pulled the logs, I probably would have been fired with the manager since we did have heated conversations leading up to the filing. People really need to reflect on what did I do to get us to this point? I still think I was within my rights to file but nothing good came of it.

if they wanted to in Teams they can pull conversations and team meetings. Usually turns out both sides are telling partial truths or denying or not recalling things that were actually said. Then if the investigation broadens then it can take down people who were just joking or venting. People try not to do it on Teams, Wells Tech is terrible, but they have the ability and right to do it.

@uzu+1qFRENIt one of the many lessons in life - nothing on the internet is private.

This does not work out for anyone involved. In the end both are basically done at that point in time. Most of the time, the filer is gone, then the manager. I have seen cases where the allegations are legitimate but no one is let go. Rarely is someone let go and recording someone will facilitate your exit end of story. The reason people are not let go is these all usually end the same way. One person's word, perception against another, even when others named corroborate some aspects, others state never happened. One giant he said, she said, with the outcome being a harsh talking to from the managers manager with any mistakes go to HR, that they can overcome over time with strictly following all policies, meaning letter of the policy for RTO no latitude, and then having to document every single detail of every call. The filer, although anonymous, is clearly known. If legitimate or not, it does tie the managers hands but all that does is have the manager keep them busy enough then when the layoff comes, the filer is let go by the managers manager. The manager may keep their job but is done in that org. Better to just leave the group because the company protects itself and you are dime-a-dozen. In this environment anyone even named witnesses who got dragged into it end up on a list. It all comes out.

you linked an article about a settlement for credit card telemarketing calls for this?

"2019 Manager lies on my review, creates hostile work environment for the members on his team over 50 including myself and numerous other actions."

Lies on your review. Did you actually complete your assessment prior to your review? Did you ask why you got a cr-p review with your manager? Did you have ANY discussions at all? if not, it's all on you for not working through this with your leadership team.

Created "hostile work environment". Who determined that? A hostile environment for 50 people including you. Really. What were the numerous "other" actions?
What was the consensus of the other 50 coworkers? Did they have any issues? What was the hostility here? Did your manager routinely call you out in front of others, call you a douchebag, threaten, yell, fa-t, sp-t? Did said manager do it to all those 50? Are they fired?

"2020, Multiple acts of retaliation and illegal activity, evidenced by recording conversations with Manager"

What acts? What illegal activity? So you started recording your manager to get the dirt on pretty much anything and whipped yourself up and out of a job instead of working things out.
The optics are not good here. You poked the bear champ, sorry to say. Learn from it and move on. You probably have no case. Unless the other 50 can support it.

@pjp+1qFRENIt “Jamoke” sent me. Had to fire up the interwebz to get to the Urban Dictionary on that one.

OP is clearly traumatized from how they’ve been treated but also pretty far off base on how the EEOC actually works. To bring the case the burden of proof will be on OP to convince the EEOC WF discriminated against them. WF then responds and then OP had to break down the response,

The best indication on whether or not you actually have a case, face it, corp America is a pretty sh---y place, is whether or not a lawyer will take your case and, if they do, on what basis. Contingency, good. Contingency plus fees, less good. Fees only, don’t bother.

@mtb+1qFRENIt You cannot fire somebody for providing evidence to the EEOC. It’s considered a protective activity, regardless of how it’s done.

@twb+1qFRENIt is the EEOC that will be out lawyering Wells Fargo not the complainant and the last time that the EEOC went up against Wells Fargo Wells Fargo, lost by 5.4 million

@qlc+1qFRENIt But you were fired for posting a recording you made during the course of business to a social media site. Absolutely a fireable action.

That doesn’t mean you weren’t discriminated against but it also doesn’t mean you were fired for going to the EEOC.

Another thing YT is good for - searching for when to use recordings in EEOC cases. I’ll save you the time - many lawyers on there saying “during discovery”. While I’m no lawyer, I’m guessing using YT to facilitate the discovery process is a bit unorthodox.

Good luck out-lawyering WFC.

To : @ted+1qFRENIt

It’s a moot point, you can’t fire someone for cooperating with the EEOC, end of story.

Wow…

Sadly I’m not surprised how this was handled.

There are several posts on this site from supposed reporters looking for stories.

Seems like the question is did you, @OP instigate the use of YT because you could see no other way to share the file or were you directed to do so by EEOC or lawyer?

My guess is that once you provided the link in the complaint, anyone who could get to the link could get to the recording.

You do know you can put an audio file on YouTube that’s UNLISTED/PRIVATE and the only way to view it is to provide someone the unique URL and it’s not even searchable. Amazon and YouTube are used for these purposes routinely, shocking you feel that someone’s rights are blown away because you disagree with the way they were forced to provide the regulator evidence. The EEOC portal does NOT provide a way to upload audio files.

While all the case law can serve to shore up litigation, the fact that this jamoke published these recordings to YouTube has nullified any protection arguments.

Doesn’t matter if it was supposedly not public, shared only with X account, etc. OP made the mistake of involving an unaccountable 3rd party and doomed himself. There is no possible way that YT was the ONLY way to get files to a .Gov investigator. It may have been an EASY way but certainly not any kind of official transfer mechanism.

Harris vs. Atkinson Cotton Warehouse (Case 2:14-cv-02603)
Take for example the case of Harris vs. Atkinson Cotton Warehouse. Untonio Harris, an African-American, worked at a cotton gin in Memphis, TN, where he and his African-American coworkers were subjected to racial discrimination so overt and shocking they didn’t think anyone would believe them.

Harris used his cell phone to record his supervisor making racist comments. (NOTE: in Tennessee, recording audio without consent of all participants is legal). One recording caught the supervisor chastising Harris for using the “white” drinking fountain and threatening to hang him for doing so. Harris repeatedly complained to management, but no action was ever taken.

Harris, along with two of his colleagues, filed a Charge of Racial Discrimination against Atkinson Cotton with the EEOC. Soon after all three men were terminated.

Workplace Retaliation
Workplace retaliation is defined as a negative action (termination, demotion, refusal or failure to promote, negative performance evaluation, and harassment) taken by an employer against an employee who alleges or reports activities that he reasonably believes to be unlawful.

According to the EEOC, because Harris participated in protected activity by standing up for their rights under state and federal anti-discrimination and harassment laws, their termination shows retaliation on behalf of Atkinson Cotton.

Harris and his fellow plaintiffs a financial settlement with the cotton warehouse’s owner in 2015.

https://www.govdocs.com/can-workers-record-video-or-audio-in-the-workplace/

Employers do have the ability to institute a no-recording policy. Employers just need to be careful when instituting such a policy to ensure that it does not infringe on an employee’s protected rights. Any anti-recording policy must be facially neutral, and any potential interference with NLRA rights must be outweighed by the employer’s valid justifications for implementing the policy. www.crowedunlevy.com/news/is-someone-listening-the-dos-and-donts-of-workplace-recording-policies/#:~:text=Employers%20do%20have%20the%20ability,on%20an%20employee%27s%20protected%20rights

Even if there was a policy in place, EEOC federal rules over rule policy, there is clear case law to that fact.

Sorry about all this but there absolutely was a policy in place that prohibited recording phone calls. How that meshes with the EEOC rule, idk, certainly am not an attorney but the policy was in place. I can’t remember the years but I’ll never forget the whole training around it when they put it out way before Covid.