Laserfiche WebLink
Page 5 of 6 <br /> sexual harassment and other me, however the District's "retired" secretary <br /> complaints confidential, as required is currently employed in her same position <br /> by law. as a retired annuitant. <br /> 5. No longer offered overtime in <br /> my zone, a standard protocol for as <br /> long as I was employed there, 4 For example, bringing in an outside worker to <br /> years perform work for over one year that I could <br /> have done. Also a secretarial position <br /> 6. District refused to offer me became open after my third injury but was <br /> modified duty when valid office filled by an outside, new worker. <br /> work was available. <br /> 3.0 Nepotism- Agree: <br /> unfounded in <br /> Grand .fury 1. The District had a Conflict of Promotion of Deanna Hopkins over <br /> report Interest policy at least as far back candidates that were obviously more <br /> as 1998 and this should have qualified than her. <br /> Refocus should applied to the two workplace <br /> been towards couples that developed after 2004. District records showing favored employees <br /> violations of the enjoyed extra perks as a result of their <br /> District's Conflict 2. Job transfers were implemented personal relationships with management <br /> of Interest policy. for at least 5 employees solely as a (e.g. Disneyland trip, limousine to office <br /> result of the personal relationships Christmas party) <br /> tolerated by the District and board. <br /> District employment records showing a <br /> 3. The District's practice has been nephew of the manager was hired instead of <br /> that retiring managers are offering the work to Tiffany, <br /> subsequently appointed to their <br /> Board. This results in at least a Transfers are reflected in employee <br /> 4.0 Inappropriat perceived Conflict of Interest, since timesheets, held by the District. If no <br /> e handling of the Board Member is now in a Conflict of Interest or Hostile Work <br /> worker's position to affect fellow friends and Environment, Harassment or Sexual <br /> compensation favored employees of the District. Harassment existed, then why were the <br /> claims, including transfers necessary? <br /> access to medical <br /> care <br /> 1. Several times I was harassed or <br /> even flat out denied access to <br /> medical treatment when I asked my <br /> supervisors When I was rear-ended in my work truck, I <br /> was denied leave to go seek medical <br /> 2. Several times when seeing the attention <br /> Workers Compensation medical <br /> doctor, my injuries were minimized Witness testimony from my personal <br /> physician and orthopedic surgeon, <br /> 3. Attempts were made by District documenting the lack of care given <br /> management to obtain my medical <br /> records, in violation of HIPPAA and Kaiser medical records showing medical <br /> state law necessity for surgery and the surgery itself, <br /> plus exposures <br /> 4. District management using petty <br /> cash funds to pay for my medical Personal documentation of events <br /> visits and spoke with the Workers <br /> Compensation doctor beforehand Witness testimony and documentation from <br /> District's claim administrator showing the <br /> District that a judge advised John Stroh <br /> 12/20/2013 <br />