University Legal y

[Chris Martin]

Jurisdiction

Texas

So I'm involved in an FMLA DOL and EEOC complaint against my employer who happens to be a big public university in Texas.

They are now instructing my co-workers and those that have worked with me the past 3 years that are still employed by the University to not talk to the DOL unless the DOL goes through legal first. This started after the DOL had already talked to some employees. Obviously former employees have stepped forward and had plenty to say.

Any idea why a university who should have nothing to hide would do this tactic? Also I have to say, it seems like an intimidation tactic against employees who may feel less cooperative for fear of doing something wrong against their employers wishes when legal makes asks.
I should also note, giant Know Your Rights federal posters have appeared all the sudden in our building and they had not been there before in the 11 years prior to my complaints.

Thoughts and next moves? Should I ask my fellow co workers to be proactive and disregard the universities legal ask? I'm pretty sure they can't require not cooperating with federal investigations.

Much appreciated in advance.

 

[army judge]

Any idea why a university who should have nothing to hide would do this tactic?

No human being possesses the ability to be omniscient.

However, if you're still bemused, why not inquire of university officials?

I should also note, giant Know Your Rights federal posters have appeared all the sudden in our building and they had not been there before in the 11 years prior to my complaints.

Mysterious, unexplained events occur regularly all over this planet. I choose to ignore such things. You possess that ability, too, should you choose to do so.

Thoughts and next moves? Should I ask my fellow co workers to be proactive and disregard the universities legal ask?

Never poke the bear, unless you have a desire to be mauled.

 

[adjusterjack]

They are now instructing my co-workers and those that have worked with me the past 3 years that are still employed by the University to not talk to the DOL unless the DOL goes through legal first.

Nothing wrong or illegal about that.

Any idea why a university who should have nothing to hide would do this tactic?

Possibly because they do have something to hide and they will continue to hide it until subpoenas are served. Or, it's just a wise policy when accused or wrong-doing.

I should also note, giant Know Your Rights federal posters have appeared all the sudden in our building and they had not been there before in the 11 years prior to my complaints.

A correction after the fact is not evidence of wrong-doing.

Should I ask my fellow co workers to be proactive and disregard the universities legal ask?

You can ask but I'm sure they won't cooperate if they value their jobs.

I'm pretty sure they can't require not cooperating with federal investigations.

They can and they did. Now it's a question of who scares the co-workers more, the feds or the employer.

Bottom line: when you accuse someone of wrong-doing, you have to prove it. The accused has no obligation to help you prove it.

So, what is your complaint and what is your evidence of wrong-doing?

 

[cbg]

I cannot imagine a set of circumstances under which any business, university, or other entity would not require that the legal department be involved first, last and in every step along the way. That's not trying to hide something; that's just plain common sense.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Any idea why a university who should have nothing to hide would do this tactic?

That's standard operating procedure for most large and midsize companies that get sued. The reason for it is nothing nefarious (usually). Rather it's to ensure that the employee won't say something that inadvertently would appear to be negative for the organization. Witnesses often don't realize that how they say things matters. Any lawyer preparing for a trial or hearing is going to want to ensure that their witnesses don't end up saying something that will be interpreted differently than what is intended and also to counsel the employee not to say anything more than it required to answer the questions that are asked — in other words, not to volunteer stuff the other side hasn't asked about. Meeting with the lawyer also helps calm the nerves of any witness by explaining to them what to expect when questioned and how to deal with it. A lot of witnesses get stressed out when they are uncertain what they are supposed to do.

Also I have to say, it seems like an intimidation tactic against employees who may feel less cooperative for fear of doing something wrong against their employers wishes when legal makes asks.

If done correctly, it is not an intimidation tactic. It's a CYA kind of thing that lawyers will tell their clients to do when involved in litigation. Indeed, one of the reasons why lawyers tell people not to answer police questions when they are being investigated for a potential crime is that statements that the client thinks may help him actually ends up hurting him even more than if he'd just have kept his mouth shut.

I should also note, giant Know Your Rights federal posters have appeared all the sudden in our building and they had not been there before in the 11 years prior to my complaints.

Also common when a business/institution goes to a lawyer: the lawyer reviews the organization's present practices and advises it what actions it is required to do (or that are a good practice to do) that it isn't doing now.

Thoughts and next moves? Should I ask my fellow co workers to be proactive and disregard the universities legal ask? I'm pretty sure they can't require not cooperating with federal investigations.

I don't recommend you do that. That could be taken as witness tampering and/or giving legal advice, neither of which you want to have to deal with and might adversely affect your case. For a non lawyer, it's easy to trip over those kinds of lines when talking to potential witnesses for the opposing side. Let your lawyer deal with any contact with the employer and its present and past employees. If you don't have a lawyer for this, now is a good time to get one. How the EEOC investigation goes can impact your case in court should you elect to sue the employer. You don't want to do (or fail to do) something that will work against you later.

Nothing about what you have said so far is an indicator that the institution thinks it is liable for anything or that it is trying to hide something bad. It's routine stuff that lawyers tell their clients to do so they don't end up accidentally hurting themselves legally, either in a present case or to protect against possible problems in the future.

 

[Tax Counsel]

They can and they did. Now it's a question of who scares the co-workers more, the feds or the employer.

No, they didn't. What they told the employees is to talk to the company first before responding to the EEOC. That is not interfering with the EEOC's investigation. The EEOC investigators surely know that anyone they wish to interview has a right to consult an attorney before answering questions. So that will not bother them. An employee can easily satisfy both the request for the employee to see the University's lawyers first and the EEOC's request for an interview. They are not mutually exclusive. There should be no worry of retaliation by the employer for talking with the EEOC after talking to its own lawyers. What would bother the EEOC is a flat refusal by the employer and employee to cooperate at all in the investigation.