due process forces the employer to give notice of adverse action. It gives the employee a certain time frame to respond to the adverse action notice. Also in the state of Virginia after a review of the case is made, the employee has an option of full review of the case if there is evidence of wrongful adverse action.
There is a lot of variation in the adjudication process. It seems that every state has their process. One of the biggest variations for the state of California is the time allowed for an employee to file against his employee. “The complaint filed with the board, shall be filed within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about.” (CAL. GOV. CODE § 8547.8) The state of California is very lenient giving the employee …show more content…
State of California is one example of how much resources go into an adverse action case. Jason Lamboy was written up for a couple of incidents. “The first was for timesheet falsification. Second adverse action was for misuse of family crisis leave. The third Adverse Action at issue was for alleged use of excessive force. The fourth Adverse Action at issue was for allegedly authorizing the release of inmate workers when such release was prohibited by a Program Status Report ("PSR")”( Lamboy v. State of California). For all those adverse action notifications he never lost any salary, the most punishment Jason ever received was a written notification. “In May 2008, Lamboy filled out a questionnaire for the EEOC in which he checked a box indicating that the basis for his employment discrimination claim was "retaliation”” ( Lamboy v. State of California). This started an investigation and the pretrial process for Lamboy. The argument on the half of the defense was “Lamboy's retaliation suit is barred because he failed to exhaust his remedies for that claim. It also argues that several of Lamboy's ethnic discrimination claims are barred because of settlement agreements he entered into with the CDCR releasing his Title VII claims. Finally, the CDCR argues that there are no genuine issues of material fact that each of the adverse employment actions was [*13] undertaken for legitimate reasons and not because of discrimination or retaliation.” ( Lamboy v. State of California). Lamboy did not win this case the court rule against his favor in a summary judgment. This is just one example how complicated these cases can
There is a lot of variation in the adjudication process. It seems that every state has their process. One of the biggest variations for the state of California is the time allowed for an employee to file against his employee. “The complaint filed with the board, shall be filed within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about.” (CAL. GOV. CODE § 8547.8) The state of California is very lenient giving the employee …show more content…
State of California is one example of how much resources go into an adverse action case. Jason Lamboy was written up for a couple of incidents. “The first was for timesheet falsification. Second adverse action was for misuse of family crisis leave. The third Adverse Action at issue was for alleged use of excessive force. The fourth Adverse Action at issue was for allegedly authorizing the release of inmate workers when such release was prohibited by a Program Status Report ("PSR")”( Lamboy v. State of California). For all those adverse action notifications he never lost any salary, the most punishment Jason ever received was a written notification. “In May 2008, Lamboy filled out a questionnaire for the EEOC in which he checked a box indicating that the basis for his employment discrimination claim was "retaliation”” ( Lamboy v. State of California). This started an investigation and the pretrial process for Lamboy. The argument on the half of the defense was “Lamboy's retaliation suit is barred because he failed to exhaust his remedies for that claim. It also argues that several of Lamboy's ethnic discrimination claims are barred because of settlement agreements he entered into with the CDCR releasing his Title VII claims. Finally, the CDCR argues that there are no genuine issues of material fact that each of the adverse employment actions was [*13] undertaken for legitimate reasons and not because of discrimination or retaliation.” ( Lamboy v. State of California). Lamboy did not win this case the court rule against his favor in a summary judgment. This is just one example how complicated these cases can