Employee Survival Guide® - The Devil Wears Santoni Shoes - This Boss Was No Angel

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome to another edition of the Employee Survival Guide, where you can learn everything your employer does not want you to know about and more. Now, here's attorney Mark Carey. Hey, it's Mark again, and welcome to the Employee Survival Guide. Today, I want to share with you one of my intentions in starting this podcast. It was to share the real-life stories of employees who challenge their employer's unlawful workplace actions. These employees are everyday folks, just like yourself, and successfully fought against their employers. I believe there is a material value in exploring these dramatic stories, personal stories that go beyond the headlines of even our blog posts or print media. the headlines of even our blog posts or print media. Periodically, I will bring these real-life stories to you so you can learn the nuances and hopefully form a deeper understanding about work

Starting point is 00:00:50 rules to better protect yourself from your employer. My lofty goal is to help you spot legal issues before they happen and avoid them, or at least arm yourself for battle with your employer. The following is a real employment case, but the names of the parties, the co-workers, the locations, etc. have been changed in order to conceal their identities and to preserve confidentiality. Otherwise, the facts are largely unchanged somewhat, and I've taken license to modify the facts. I will narrate and point out notable legal issues along the way and then provide a few closing comments at the end. So let's introduce the new story.

Starting point is 00:01:30 Please meet Natalia Smith. She resides in New Jersey and is a 45-year-old female. She's employed by Big Family Office, previously known as Big Capital. Big Family Office was founded by Harvey Epstein, age 47, a Yale-educated hedge fund manager with a personal net worth of $4 billion. Epstein would routinely make million-dollar donations to his alma mater. He maintained a board seat on various popular institutions in the city. He wore expensive designer clothes and wore 3,500-cent Tony shoes. He maintained homes in Greenwich, Connecticut, the Hamptons, Long Island,

Starting point is 00:02:06 Park City, Utah, and Paris. Natalia began her employment at Big Capital in 2007 and has been working there for 11 years. Big Capital has approximately 50 or more employees. Natalia was initially hired by Big Capital as a consultant in March 2007. Although she was brought on in a consultant capacity, she soon recognized that she was working more hours as a full-time employee, averaging 50 to 60 hours per week, if not more. Her initial and primary job responsibility was to oversee the build-out of the new big capital office in New York City. Her role was to manage and to coordinate all of the construction on this project that was to take place through September of 2007,

Starting point is 00:02:50 and then move all employees over to the new office. During this time, Natalia worked 60-plus hours per week. She also had over an hour commute into New York City from her home in New Jersey. In this role, Natalia was paid an hourly rate of $75 per hour. She was not given any overtime pay, sick pay, vacation pay, or health care or other benefits. She did not given any overtime pay, sick pay, vacation pay, or health care or other benefits. She did not manage any employees. Thus, under normal circumstances, she would have been entitled to overtime compensation beyond 40 hours a week. What I just described was a scenario where a lot of people find themselves in terms of being an independent contractor, like Natalia. I have to point out to you that the law in most states requires what's called the ABC test. And it boils down to simply this. How much control over the time and duties of the employer has over the employee each day? If the employee is working

Starting point is 00:03:35 50 to 60 hours a week, well, guess what? They're really working as an employee. So it's harder for an employer to demonstrate that that person's an independent contractor. Generally, independent contractors can work for anybody more than one employer. So back to the story. In September 2007, when this project ended, Natalia was promoted to manage Big Capital and oversee the construction of a satellite office they had in the Hamptons. She worked exclusively on this project. She essentially relocated to Long Island and lived there as needed in order to oversee the project.

Starting point is 00:04:09 Natalia was there on a weekly basis for at least three months, and the company reimbursed her for housing expenses. She worked an average of 60 hours per week on this project, beginning her workday at the site at 6 a.m. and often not leaving until approximately 8 p.m. each day. day at the site at 6 a.m. and often not leaving until approximately 8 p.m. each day. Again, during this time, March 2008, Natalia was not provided any overtime pay or health care benefits during this period. She did not work for any other employer during her entire career with Big Capital and later with Big Family Office. On June 1, 2008, when these two projects were completed, Natalia was assigned the new title Facilities Manager and assigned the new title of Facilities Manager and was placed in charge of facilities management at the office in New York.

Starting point is 00:04:49 In this role, she was responsible for the maintenance of the office space and management, and she had the most knowledge in this area. Natalia was also put in charge of residential renovation of a high-ranking employee at the company. In this position as a Facilities Manager, Natalia was managed, directed, and operated as a full-time employee. She worked a 50-hour work week while still being considered a consultant. However, Big Capital still refused to change her work status to employee and compensate her accordingly, and she was forced to maintain her consultant status. In August 2009, Big Capital closed, and the principals decided to terminate 80% of its employees. Natalia was one of only 20% that remained.

Starting point is 00:05:29 Her role was to facilitate the transition from a large-scale hedge fund operation to a family office called Big Family Office. In addition to this role, Natalia became the project manager of a personal investment real estate project in Long Island, and worked on that project as well. In or about March 2010, Natalia became pregnant for the first time. At this time, her employer was still unwilling to change her status from a consultant to an employee, and as a result, they did not feel they had any legal obligation to afford Natalia with benefits, family medical leave, vacation pay, overtime pay, or any other legal entitlements of a full-time employee. Barry Dillard wanted Big Family Office to be a non-employer entity, and he even took pay as a consultant, even though he was employed by Big Family Office at the time. Natalia was forced

Starting point is 00:06:14 to work throughout her entire pregnancy, often working 14-plus hour days. In addition, all the employees at the company were entitled to four to five months of maternity leave. However, Natalia was only given seven weeks maternity leave, with the caveat that she worked remotely during the entire period of time, which she did. Natalia worked in the hospital after an emergency C-section two days after delivery. Upon arriving home, she worked seven-plus hours a day during her pregnancy leave. A temp was hired, but she could not fulfill Natalia's job duties. After Natalia came back to work from her seven weeks of working remotely while she was out on maternity leave, she continued to work on numerous projects for the company, again still as

Starting point is 00:06:55 a consultant. One of the largest projects she worked on during this time was the Hamptons residence for the principal of the company, Harvey Epstein. Despite having a young family at home, Natalia was required to commute to the Hamptons for a six-month period, often staying in the Hamptons and away from her family and new baby for weeks at a time. Or in the alternative, she was working 17 plus hours a day and commuting back and forth from the Hamptons to her home in New Jersey. From 2007 to 2013, Natalia worked for 60-plus hours a week and continued to meet all the state and federal guidelines for employee status and was a valuable, productive, and essential part of the company. She never had a performance review during this time. Yet, despite their promises to provide them, Natalia was never treated or hired as an employee and was still not receiving any health care or employee benefits, sick or personal time, paid vacation, or maternity leave.

Starting point is 00:07:47 Ed Harrison, Big Family Office's CFO, was concerned about the level of work Natalia was doing, not as an employee, but as a consultant. Natalia was mistreated, overworked, and excluded by the company. She did the work of multiple employees and did not get the same treatment as other employees in the company. She was discouraged from pursuing other employment for fear that she would be fired. She was just a consultant to them. So if she did not produce, she would be let go as it happened to other employees. Each year between 2007 and 2013, at various points in time and in numerous conversations, Natalia was told by Ed Harrison and led to believe that she would be made an

Starting point is 00:08:25 employee. However, her status remained unchanged. Natalia was embarrassed and humiliated by their failure to keep their promise and make her an employee of the company. She was treated differently than the other employees of the company and regularly and often excluded. Specifically, she was barred from attending any company-sponsored or company-related celebrations, such as out-of-work gatherings, holiday parties, and in-office gatherings, luncheons, trips, etc. She was treated as a total outsider, even though she was intimately involved in corporate activities. This disparate and extremely unfair and humiliating treatment went on for a grueling seven years, from 2007 to 2013. Natalia felt like an outsider and no respect from the people she worked for. By 2013, it was understood by this

Starting point is 00:09:12 point in time that any ongoing questioning about her employment status could result in her termination and was greatly frowned upon. This was confirmed by Barry Dillard. So Natalia kept quiet and did what she was told. She continued to work hard and diligently, as always, and was a productive and effective employee. On or about September 2013, Natalia was told by Ed Harrison, Big Family Office CFO, that it had become necessary that they hire her before they get caught. Natalia fully understood what that meant. She was working full-time for internal members of the same company. At that time, December 30, 2013, Natalia was made an employee of Big Family Office with a salary and full benefits. She was offered a position at the company as a facilities manager and project manager and paid a salary of $230,000 in full health benefits. Her role there was ultimately the same

Starting point is 00:10:03 as it had been for the previous seven years. She worked as a construction project manager for both personal and investment properties, as well as facilities manager for the 33,000 square foot office. Natalia's job required her to still work both on-site and off-site on a regular basis, traveling back and forth to the Hamptons, Long Island, Connecticut, PA, and other areas to do on-site visits. She was on call 24-7 and required to respond at all times, days and nights, weekends, holidays, etc., or face retribution. She would be yelled at for not responding to calls and emails in a timely fashion. It was this type of fact pattern that led me to title the podcast as the Devil Wears Santoni. In 2014,

Starting point is 00:10:47 Natalia notified the company that she was pregnant with her second child. She also informed them of her high-risk pregnancy and that her physician ordered her to work less hours. Even though this was a high-risk pregnancy, Natalia was forced to work long hours throughout the pregnancy. In June 2014, she gave birth and was offered the standard company policy, benefit of four months maternity leave. Upon her return in October 2014, Natalia continued to work full-time on projects issued by numerous members of the company, as well as continuing to manage facilities. On or about April 2016, Natalia was diagnosed with breast cancer. She informed her employer about the diagnosis on

Starting point is 00:11:25 April 15, 2016, and assured the company that her work would not be impacted. Even amidst this diagnosis and health issue, she continued her rigorous and demanding work schedule of approximately 50-plus hours per week until June of 2016, when she had to undergo a double mastectomy. Natalia only took two weeks off to have the surgery and then was required to work remotely for two weeks while attempting to recover from this major surgery before returning to work full-time. Barry Dillard required her to work as soon as possible. In or about October 2016, Natalia needed to undergo reconstructive surgery for which she only took off one week from work. However, they required

Starting point is 00:12:05 her to work remotely that entire week. Barry Dillard again required her to work as soon as possible. During that time, Natalia was placed on medications to deal with post-operative cancer surgery recovery, which gave her adverse side effects, but she continued to work full-time. Also during this time, she had monthly doctor appointments in New Jersey. So on those days, she worked remotely so she could keep her medical appointments near where she lived. The surgery recovery and cancer medications were extremely strong and presented many negative side effects. But still, Natalia kept up with her work schedule and performed all of her job duties. She was able to perform her job duties with or without accommodation. Specifically during this point in her treatment and surgery recovery, June of 2016 and October of 2016,

Starting point is 00:12:51 Natalia was still overseeing the facilities management of the office and was working on a project with her co-worker, Barry Dillard, that consisted of a hedge fund office build-out. In addition, she was assisting the future office renovation of the home office as well as the design work for the office in Greenwich, and residential work. At no time did Natalia's cancer or related surgery or medications interfere with or affect her ability to perform her job duties. In August 2017, Natalia learned her cancer had metastasized, and she would have to undergo additional treatments to deal with this devastating and life-threatening diagnosis. This resulted in a number of doctor appointments, MRIs, scans, biopsies, etc. Again, on the days that she had these appointments, she would work

Starting point is 00:13:35 remotely per her request, and she would always try to coordinate her doctor appointments to accommodate work tasks. On or about January 2017, Natalia became concerned that her co-worker Barry Dillard was reassigned out of Big Family office and was not replaced by anyone. Dillard continued to work for another part of the company. During a time when Natalia was already working 50-plus hours per week, working at above full capacity handling multiple job sites, projects, and work duties, and undergoing aggressive cancer treatment. She was assigned his job responsibilities by Barry Dillard and expected to deal with it. As a result, her workload had more than doubled. She was working on more than six projects at the same time, plus facilities management. She had always had a great deal more responsibilities than other employees, but at this time it became almost unmanageable and caused her extreme stress and compromised her emotional and physical well-being.

Starting point is 00:14:30 The increased stress was unbearable. Natalia was not treated similarly in this regard, as no other employee was forced to handle the same or similar workload. She did request assistance, but she did not receive any from the company. With this extreme workload, Natalia felt and believed she was being tested, overwhelmed, overpressured, being pushed to quit, or being pushed to her failure point, so that they could create a reason and find cause to fire her or push her out. Barry Dillard confirmed this, and Natalia also informed him of her cancer. She provided them no such cause or opportunity. However, during 2016 to 2017, her bonus compensation was reduced by 80% without

Starting point is 00:15:11 explanation. The writing was now on the wall. They wanted Natalia to quit. Shortly after that, Natalia's belief and suspicions became even more clear. On or about September 2017, she was presented with an offer by Ed Harrison to take a leave of absence with full salary and benefits so she could focus on her health. Natalia never requested a leave of absence from the company during the September 2017 time period. Ed Harrison stated to her during the meeting in the conference room that Harvey Epstein allegedly wanted her to focus 100% on her health. Natalia declined this offer and asked if she could continue to work. Mr.

Starting point is 00:15:51 Harrison said okay. Natalia did so and continued to work as before. She worked in this capacity immediately after that and started chemo treatment for her metastasized cancer. And in spite of having severe adverse reactions, including nausea, vomiting, and fatigue, she only worked remotely on select days, again, when she had doctor appointments near her home. In or about November 2017, Natalia had surgery to remove her ovaries as part of her cancer treatment. She took some time off to recover, but was quickly back working remotely, perfectly managing her off-site and in-house responsibilities as she had always done. In December 2017, Natalia started back

Starting point is 00:16:33 on chemo and was advised by her office to work remotely. She worked remotely December 2017 to January 2018, but kept up all of her projects and job duties and worked closely with individuals in the office and vendors to make sure everything remained covered. She was still experiencing severe side effects from her cancer treatments. Natalia's worst suspicions were confirmed when on or about January 2018, during a routine check-in call with her team, she was advised that Barry Dillard and Ed Harrison had decided to force the offer again and put her on an extended leave of absence. The same terms were extended to her, but she now was being forced to agree to those terms.

Starting point is 00:17:15 They told her she was being put on leave. Natalia begged to continue working. They said no. She was told to hand over all her responsibilities to other employees. She was to train and hand over all her responsibilities to other people in the office, as well as projects to a consultant. She pleaded with Ed Harris not to do that, but they told her she had no say in the decision, as the firm allegedly wanted her to focus 100% on her health and family so that she could get well and come back to work

Starting point is 00:17:47 when she was done with the treatment. In the facts here, what I've just described is a common situation. You understand that the employer's goal here is only to get the person removed physically from the office. When you put them out on Femine Medical Leave Act, I'm going to tell you by practice, you're not coming back. So we often see that employers try to push employees out like this, like Natalia, knowing full well they're never going to bring her back. And you'll see in a moment. At this time, Natalia's treatment still consisted of additional chemo, followed by surgery, followed by six weeks of radiation. The expectation from her doctors was that her treatment would be concluded in June of

Starting point is 00:18:25 2018. Natalia was told by Ed Harrison that she was to be placed on paid leave through that time, and she would be fully compensated at full salary with benefits. Natalia was specifically assured that all of her health insurance costs would be covered until her return to full-time work in June of 2018. Natalia finalized her handovers on January 31, 2018. As soon as that was completed, and at that time, and without any notice or discussion, all access to her files, documents, contacts, emails, texts, login, VPN access, were turned off by the company. This was a forced leave of absence with no means of communication and no access to

Starting point is 00:19:05 any of the email documents, not only related to her work, but to any conversations, discussions, and paper trail leading up to and regarding her employment status and forced leave. On information and belief, it took five people to do the job Natalia alone held and flawlessly and expertly performed, even during and after her pregnancy's birth and cancer treatments. Essentially, after some initial training and handing over her responsibilities, Natalia was shut down and shut out of the company. She felt at that time that she was being fired and that what they couldn't achieve by overworking her and in the absence of any negative or fault in her performance, they pushed her out under the

Starting point is 00:19:45 pretext of being concerned about her health and her family. This was a calculated effort and plan to get rid of her, bar none. While Natalia was unsure of and very concerned about her work status, she continued to assist with work questions and job-related matters through mid-February 2018 using her personal email. Moreover, in and about February 2018, the company requested that she have her doctor and oncologist fill out a disability form. Natalia did not understand why they were asking this, and she was not out on disability. She was told by the company that there were still records and information that needed to be documented. At her doctor's appointment, Natalia presented the forms

Starting point is 00:20:27 and asked that they complete the short-term disability form. Her doctor also understood that she was technically still working but dated the documents the day that they were presented. If, in fact, these forms were being used to put her on short-term disability, they should have been dated February 1, 2018, the actual date her employer could have placed her on short-term disability, they should have been dated February 1, 2018. The actual date her employer could have placed her on short-term disability. Instead, it appears her doctor dated the short-term disability form from January to June of 2018. Again, confirming her suspicions,

Starting point is 00:20:57 Ed Harrison, Big Family Office CFO, contacted Natalia and requested that she ask her doctor to redate the forms as far back as possible. She requested this correction from her doctor, who questioned why, as she also understood that she was not on disability, nor did she plan on entering into a short-term disability program. Natalia could offer no explanation, so she said that she could only go back to her surgery date, which she felt was the only time she could have been placed on temporary short-term disability if she elected to do so. Natalia's physician put a line through

Starting point is 00:21:31 the January date and redated the forms to November 1, 2017. Natalia later learned that this redating was done so that the company could get additional reimbursement for the time that she was working. This fraudulent practice allowed the company to carry Natalia's coverage on an older plan with different restrictions and requirements rather than on the new plan, which went into effect on January 1, 2018. She believes that placing her on short-term disability would have impacted the company's ability to double dip on her insurance and would have required them to cover her health care through August of 2018. On March 15, 2018, Natalia's worst fears and suspicions were ultimately confirmed when after having had little to no contact with Big Family Office,

Starting point is 00:22:15 she received a directive from Ed Harrison, the CFO of the company, on March 15, forwarding the short-term disability and COBRA documentation and ordering her to complete, sign, and return the forms to his attention. Because their agreement and Natalia's understanding was that she was on an extended leave with full salary and benefits and that COBRA was a transitioning program for the unemployed, Natalia questioned why COBRA was necessary. She received no explanation. She was simply told she was now being placed on long-term disability. Again, this reason made no sense in light of what the company had previously promised

Starting point is 00:22:52 to her regarding her paid leave. COBRA is only provided to employees when they are terminated. Now, the facts leading up to this point are as follows. Companies will oftentimes force you out an FMLA and then concurrently, at the same point in time, apply your claim for short-term disability to their insurance carrier. And once you go through six months of short-term disability, the employer will then put you in application for long-term disability, whether or not you intended to do so. This is exactly what happened to Natalia. The issue with Cobra here is, she's right, they have to issue Cobra when they terminate. However, they can issue Cobra to her even though she's on long-term disability because she's technically terminated from wages,

Starting point is 00:23:37 but she's not terminated from other benefits in the company. Now back to the story. On or about March 15, 2018, in an email, Natalia continued to question Ed Harrison, the CFO, as his minimal response was not sufficient and intentionally vague and misleading. Natalia noted to him that she was forced into extended leave and therefore forced to also accept the terms of full salary and benefits offered. She explained that she accepted and made decisions regarding her health care and family situation based on that. She reminded him that her return to work was within 60 days. Natalia stated that she was never offered or agreed to short-term disability or long-term

Starting point is 00:24:16 disability for that matter, and that COBRA was usually for terminated employees. At no time was she provided with any documentation, information, or communications to the contrary of any of the above. At no time was she presented with a modified offer or notified in any way of the company's intent to alter the previously agreed-upon paid leave compensation with benefits agreement. Instead, on March 15, 2018, Natalia was redirected to an email stating that nothing was changing regarding their initial contract. In this email, Mr. Harrison insisted their agreement was still in place, that her salary would continue to be paid in full. They would still be covering her health care costs.

Starting point is 00:24:58 Furthermore, the email stated that any out-of-pocket or upfront costs of COBRA would be 100% reimbursed. any out-of-pocket or upfront costs of COBRA will be 100% reimbursed. On or about March of 2018, Natalia figured out why the company requested the backdating of disability forms. In addition, even if the company had ever discussed, offered, or suggested short-term disability, at the time they could have only claimed that she was on short-term disability as of February 1, 2018, which would amount to just six weeks of coverage. On March 15, 2018, Natalia requested the firm provide a written explanation, as she was confused and concerned about the backdating. On March 16, 2018, Natalia asked Ed Harrison to have a call to discuss the above backdating issue.

Starting point is 00:25:40 On March 19, 2018, she was asked by Ed Harrison to be on a call with the office manager and himself and Barry Dillard. On that call, everything the company offered and promised had changed. Specifically, on March 19, Ed Harrison and Barry Dillard outright stated that they were no longer honoring the written and verbal agreement to place Natalia on paid leave. They stated that there was no longer a position or role for her at the company. Now, this is a side comment. This is the intended result, going all the way back to the point when they put her on FMLA leave, that they would eventually force her out and put her on basically an insurance benefit coverage. And she would no longer, if covered by the insurance policy for long-term disability,

Starting point is 00:26:24 by the operation of the policy, she would not receive any salary. It would all be coming from the plan benefit, which is an insured product. Now, let's continue on. Mr. Dillard and Mr. Harrison went on to state that they would not be covering her salary moving forward, and they were going to provide her with a small separation package. When she directly asked if she was being fired, there was a silence. Certainly, their silence indicated and confirmed that she was indeed being terminated or forced out. Her husband was part of the conversation as he was in the room and the call was on the speakerphone and witnessed all of this.

Starting point is 00:27:03 Natalia informed them that she was not accepting their severance package and hung up the phone. On March 20, 2018, she was asked by the office manager to participate in another phone call. As they said, the original call did not go as planned and they wanted to clarify the situation. Again, Natalia's husband was a party and witness to the call. On that call, the company attempted to backpedal on what was said during the initial call and assured her that she was not being fired, that there was never a mention of a separation package. They did confirm when pressed that they were no longer willing to cover her health care expense as, quote, Harvey Epstein changed his mind, end quote, but could not tell her why or how much she would have to pay for cover under COBRA,

Starting point is 00:27:48 they did not offer a reason why Harvey had changed his mind. In light of the conflicting information conveyed in these two phone calls, Natalia requested Ed Harrison send her a detailed explanation in writing so she could understand what her employment compensation and health care status was. He agreed. Instead, on March 21, 2018, Natalia received a letter from the company outlining only three options she had with regard to her employment. In some, she was told to either return to work on April 1, 2018, and retain her coverage, cover her own long-term insurance with no explanation of the terms, or agree to the severance package.

Starting point is 00:28:25 Natalia was unable to make a decision at that time without the information she had requested. On March 23, 2018, the office manager and Ed Harrison set up another phone call with Natalia. In this call, as witnessed by her husband, they informed her again that Harvey Epstein had changed his mind about her salary and benefits coverage, which is why she is now being faced with the options in a letter dated March 21, 2018. Natalia informed them in that call that it was clear that they were trying to fire her and the motivations behind it. She received no response. She further stated that in light of the options she was being offered and the health crisis that she was facing, Natalia had

Starting point is 00:29:05 no other choice than to agree to go back to work on April 1st, 2018. However, when she stated that, they told her she was no longer able to exercise that option and that it was no longer an option they are offering. Ultimately, after 11 years of devoted service to the company, they wanted Natalia to agree to a small severance package with just three months of company-paid health insurance and mandatory release of claims. They stated that they believed this agreement was a, quote, more than fair and generous offer, end quote. In addition, they provided Natalia only three calendar days to accept the severance offer or it would be withdrawn. This is a typical rush job when the

Starting point is 00:29:45 employer is on a sketchy grounds for termination. Italia was being pressured into signing this agreement. She received numerous calls, emails, and text messages using pressure tactics in this regard from the company's employees. In her 11 years with the company, Italia never received a negative performance review. In her 11 years of the company, she was verbally abused, threatened, mistreated, overworked, taunted, undervalued, and exploited. She was treated differently than male employees. She was discriminated against because of her age, gender, and disability. In her 11 years of the company, Natalia worked consistently 13 plus hour days with no breaks at all, not even for lunch. She worked these days in spite of her two pregnancies, cancer diagnosis, surgery, and treatment. Other employees without these hardships

Starting point is 00:30:32 and disabilities work far less and often remotely from their homes. Natalia suffered a hostile work environment based on the gender and disability discrimination she experienced. This hostility affected her ability to do her job and took a severe and extreme toll on her life, her family, and eventually her health. In her 11 years of the company, Natalia experienced a culture of severe and discriminatory favoritism referred to amongst employees as the Diamond Club. The Diamond Club has come to describe certain employees who, for reasons not related to job performance, are treated more favorably than others. These Diamond Club members enjoy a light workload and generous benefits.

Starting point is 00:31:17 In contrast, Atayu was not part of this Diamond Club, and as a result, from day one, she was mistreated. It did not matter how hard she worked. It was never enough. She was overworked and constantly thrown additional work assignments, while other younger, non-disabled male employees were treated like diamonds, spending their work days leisurely online shopping, out of the office, and surfing the internet. Needless to say, the favoritism was only heightened once the company decided they wanted to push Natalia out because of her age, gender, family leave, medical condition, disability, and health care costs associated with the same. Natalia contemplated complaining about this favoritism, but feared increased abuse, public humiliation, and retribution if she did so. In addition to

Starting point is 00:31:55 the above, and as a direct result of the company's discriminatory and unlawful treatment, Natalia is being deprived of life-saving medical treatment. On March 21, 2018, she went to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, for which Harvey Epstein serves as a Board of Trustees member, for an appointment with her oncologist, and was refused crucial treatment due to the termination of her health insurance by Mr. Epstein. At this time, Natalia has no health insurance, nor does any member of her family. Her only access to medical treatment for her late-stage cancer diagnosis and condition is to pay 100% out-of-pocket, which she cannot

Starting point is 00:32:31 afford. As a result, Natalia is unable to see her doctors and to get the critical treatment she needs. She was scheduled to start another round of chemo, but the hospital is refusing to treat her because of her lack of insurance. She has other essential prescriptions she cannot fill, and doctors or appointments she cannot no longer attend because she has no health care coverage. Natalia was supposed to have her MRIs and PET scans at this time, but all these tests and appointments have to be canceled. And because of her serious diagnosis, she is unable to afford or obtain private health care insurance. In addition,

Starting point is 00:33:05 Natalia's husband also has a form of cancer for which he is not able to get treated for and receive medical care because they no longer have family medical coverage through the company's insurance plan. If Natalia dies because she was not able to receive necessary cancer treatments, her wrongful death will be caused by big Family Office's discriminatory and willful conduct. As a result of the discontinuation of her health care coverage during the most critical time in Natalia's life, she has been in contact with her insurance providers. They informed her that Big Family Office had unlawfully backdated their paperwork for her short-term disability, which is why she now needs to sign up for COBRA. There is no dispute that Big Family Office fraudulently backdated the short-term disability documents to the November

Starting point is 00:33:50 1st, 2018 dates, so they can collect on dates when she was working and file against their old plan. The company has attempted to portray this as a requirement of the health care provider, when in fact there is no such requirement, and it is 100% their doing and fraud. Natalia has been working with her disability insurance carrier to correct the paperwork to reflect the true and accurate dates. As a result of all the above, Natalia is not only dealing with the unjust and unlawful termination of her employment and the company's pressuring tactics to have her enter into an untenable and unfair severance agreement,

Starting point is 00:34:25 but she is unable to get the cancer treatment she desperately needs at this time. She is unable to afford or qualify for private health care insurance because of her situation, and she is not able to quickly secure new employment as she is sick, and has several more months of chemo, surgery, and radiation ahead of her, assuming she can figure out a way to get this treatment covered or paid for. By unlawfully terminating her, the company has placed Natalia in a financial ruin. But more significantly, the company has placed her health in grave danger. If she cannot quickly and immediately resume her medical care and chemical treatments,

Starting point is 00:35:01 the prognosis is fatal. This incomprehensible and intentional treatment by the company has caused Natalia extreme stress and anxiety on many levels. In addition to her cancer, she is suffering from additional physical and emotional ailments related to the stress and anxiety of this situation. She is suffering from panic attacks, shaking, shortness of breath, unable to sleep, eat, or function. She believes she is being punished, treated differently, and discriminated against because of her age, gender, illness, and disability. Big Family Office knew about her cancer and not only failed to provide her fair and reasonable accommodations, but directly and intentionally terminated her employment, substantially because

Starting point is 00:35:40 of her cancer disability. This was an intentional and malicious act by Big Family Office. Big Family Office knowingly terminated Natalia's health care coverage because she has cancer. This was an intentional and malicious act by Big Family Office. Natalia was ready, willing, and able to return to work on April 1, 2018, as agreed and offered initially by the company. But the company breached that agreement and refused to allow Natalia to come back to work. She was terminated substantially because of her age, gender, cancer, and disability. The company has not provided any reason or just cause for termination. This adverse action is clearly a pretext for discrimination and the company's financial gain in removing a disabled employee from their health care plan. Now, as you can now see, there was a very tragic story here happening.

Starting point is 00:36:30 I will say that things dramatically did improve for Natalia. She was able to resolve her differences, is all I can say about it, substantially so. And I would say that one of the biggest leverage points here was it was a disclosure issue because her $4 billion worth hedge fund boss didn't want this to come out in public. We have an Ivy League educated individual donating to charities in the city and trying to appear to be a well-respected individual. But in reality, the backside of it is he's treating his employee like a piece of crap. I mean, it's one of the foremost prominent cases in my memory that I can recall that just shocks the conscience. You need to understand that cases like this never see the light of day because they are settled. The good cases do get settled. But in just a summary of

Starting point is 00:37:24 what happened in Italia, a whole host of things happened to. But in addition to the summary of what happened in Italia, a whole host of things happened to her that you need to be aware of so that when you're dealing with your employers in the future, when an employer puts you on FMLA, start documenting things for yourself because you didn't ask for FMLA. That was pretty obvious in the storyline. And the same goes with a short-term disability and long-term disability. The employer is pushing the individual out into leave of absence purely just to get them physically out of the office. By my years of experience, I'll tell you, that's the number one strategy that employers use. And you need to fight against it, as she did here. And she told them that she was

Starting point is 00:37:58 going to go back to work on April 1st, and they said, that's no longer an option for you. So this whole case would have erupted into a lawsuit had it not been resolved, and it would have made substantial news, I will say that to you. The other aspects of the case involved disability reasonable accommodations. When she requested a leave of absence for FMLA, it was also a leave of absence for under the ADA and whatever local city ordinance that they had. And the employer denied those accommodations. Initially, they gave her time off to work remotely, but even during her time off, they required her to work. So there was a disconnect between the accommodations being asked and presented. Eventually, you saw that the bias presented itself in the facts themselves of what they were doing.

Starting point is 00:38:39 And it was, again, because of the fact pattern and pushing this individual into the utmost dire straits of financial ruin and health care choices that she could not make because she didn't have any money or health care coverage. That's why the case resolved itself. It's an extreme situation, but I wanted you to see and hear how other employees deal with things, this individual did find legal counsel well in advance and was able to frame that story that you just heard to the employer with successful outcomes. So it's really important to document what you're doing behind the scenes, offline, don't use a computer that's work-related, and develop your case if you find yourself in this situation. The other aspects of the case that are notable is simply the healthcare termination issue. It's tricky, but yes, the employer can terminate your healthcare benefits while you're on short-term disability. It's really a driven issue by

Starting point is 00:39:35 the plan documents. So check your portal in HR and see whether when you get on short-term disability and long-term disability, typically long-term, you lose your healthcare insurance and you get that COBRA notice. It's very disconcerting when you do get it because you think, well, I'm on benefit, but you're terminating me. So it does happen that way. Not all the times. It generally does mean that the employer is trying to get rid of you permanently. Because when a company does offer you a short-term and long-term disability, your first reaction is, OK, it's a benefit from employment, I can go out on leave, receive 60% of my pay, et cetera, and then come back. Well, I'm going to tell you something. As an Arisa attorney doing this for 25 years, you ain't coming back, period. I have never seen an employee come back from LTD coverage.

Starting point is 00:40:22 So when you go down that slippery slope of FMLA, you're on your way out. I'm just going to break the news to you. You ain't coming back. So it's what we see. And so I need you to take hold of that information and protect yourself going forward. So that's the story I wanted to bring to you. And I'll try to do others similar to this in the future as to give you a real life situation instead of just maybe, you know, preachy type of like blog articles or the opinion and whatever. This is a real situation that happened to someone, and it's tragic, and there's a lot to be seen that's happening in there. So if you want to replay it, go ahead. The points simply in summary are, if you have FMLA, disability, et cetera, protect yourself, document, file

Starting point is 00:41:06 what you need to file with the HR department, but start building your case against your employer because you're eventually going to be turned out on the street with your box and set yourself up for negotiation, not necessarily a civil litigation, but a negotiation with your employer will most likely give you the transition money and severance to allow things to become a little easier. Again, the employer is not required to employ you. It's at will. You know I'm against that rule.

Starting point is 00:41:32 And I basically want people to work for cause termination and not under the at will because you can get so quickly terminated without any reason whatsoever as the case occurred here with Natalia. Best of luck. And please, if you like the podcast, please send a review, and look forward to talking to you soon. Take care.

Employee Survival Guide® - The Devil Wears Santoni Shoes - This Boss Was No Angel

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.