Have Legal Questions? Ask a Lawyer Now.
Well, yes/no will definitely reduce my workload this evening; however, I do not think it will help my EEOC case. How to I, for example, handle the following:
Admit that you did not implement X (X=Computer "Stuff", which caused a system outage)
Interrogatory: No opportunity to answer the fact that I did not implement X because I was on vacation, informed my manager of the risk and how to mitigate it, manager instructed "hostile" coworker to do this, coworker did not, and I was left holding the bag upon my return. Escalated to management, CIO ignored me and I had to go to HR for relief just to go home.
So, I can squeeze it into a hostile enviornment Interrogatory, but it appears that they are trying to point to this situation specifically. Do I answer it in the Request for Admission that is specifically asking about this question, answer no there, or squeeze it into an interrogatory?
Other than pixie dust, is there a way that I can consolidate hostile behavior, derogatory remarks, discriminator behavior, et. al into one commentary. That is to say, there are a number of overlapping issues that are hard to "pull apart". One example, I overheard my male team-members (I was in another's cube and they did not know I was there - yep, got an earful) calling me a "backstabbing bitch" (gender discrimination), talking about ways to get rid of me (hostile work environment - retaliation) , etc. There are a number of instances that are similar in nature. Is there a way that I can trim down multiple questions requiring multiple responses to one referring reference of exhibits?
In your response to use Denied as Stated for the request for Admission and add to the interrogatory. If there is not an interrogatory that specifically addresses not installing X, which interoggatory do I add it to or
Denied as Stated
. . . and here is why
Sorry for the crude example, but are you proposing the following:
The following Exhibits indicate inappropriate behavior, be it a hostile work environment, retailiation, or discrimination based on gender
Interrogatory 1 address hotile work environment
See response to Interogatory X
interrogatory 2 address discrimination based on gender
Interrogatory 3 address retaliation
See response to Interogatory X
Sorry, not looking for shortcuts. I tend to be a bit prolific, so I have spend the last two weeks just organizing over 1,500 documents. I have a deadline of 6/7, but my attorney needed this yesterday.
Open to ideas, of course
Sorry, confused (my normal state these days, while trying to manage a full-time, hostile job and a Civil Rights/EEOC filing - ah, the strategy to kill me with paperwork). Let me repeat what I think I heard: I can do as was proposed; however, I need to make sure that when I reference Interrogatory X, interrogatory X has exhibits that represent another interrogatory's requirements, even though they would have to "sort" through various exhibits?
What I was trying to say is that you should respond as follows:
See response to Interogatory X, Exhibit "A".
You need to be specific about which exhibits are responsive to the question.
I was afraid of that, as different types if issues are "intermingled" within each exhibit. This was apparent in the example I gave about overhearing a conversation in the office next to where I was. I suspect the solution is to put together all the "inappropriate" exhibits and have my attorney sort through them. I am sure as an attorney that you appreciate a well organized client, especially when what I do is so technical that my attorney is always razzing me about not know what the heck I'm talking about at times :-)
Given me another two weeks and I could have this all whipped into shape. Well, there is that full-time job I still have to do in between, so I might need three weeks. Oh well, I'll be working through the night to do what I can.
I appreciate your sage legal advice and stating the obvious - there are no short cuts to a complex case that required hiring a top labor attorney. I'll let you off the hook and get back to the work at hand. Yep, face the inevitable.
At $350 he is worth every penny. I just don't have a lot of pennys, nor did I want to call him and admit that I was lost. I understand that to do his job effectively, I have to do mine just as well. Yes, it does not make sense for him to sift through my paperwork. He is estatic that I am as prolific as I am - just a habit and preferred method of communications. In this situation, my minor in English is definitely more important than my major in computers. title="Laughing"/>
Thanks for being a good listener and providing some great advise. I suspect that I just needed someone to get me focused and pointed in the right direction.
"All that is necessary for the triump of evil is that good " (Edmund Burke). I'm back on track.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).