Wyeth Employee Balks At Outsourcing & Gets Fired

[OhioChick]

Source: Pharmalot

December 1st, 2008 // 8:20 am

That’s the allegation in a lawsuit filed last week by Laura Bedford, who was a senior administrative specialist and project coordinator at the time she was dismissed in June 2007. She had worked for the drugmaker since 1989.

Bedford charges that, in early 2007, Wyeth outsourced invoices to India, causing her “significant difficulties,” because the info coming from India was “always muddled and incomplete,” according to her suit, which was filed in federal court in Philadelphia (here it is).

Bedford subsequently complained that jobs should not be outsourced and that Wyeth was discriminating against US workers. On June 18, 2007, she alleges she was suspended, pending an investigation, because her personal mail was mixed with work mail. Her lawsuit then states she was fired for this reason on the same day, although male employees were not fired for “similar offenses.”

There is no additional info in the lawsuit about Bedford, her work responsibilities or the allegations made by Wyeth, but she is suing Wyeth for gender, national original and race discrimination, claiming she suffered retaliation. We await word from Wyeth and Bedford’s attorney. We will update you with any comments. UPDATE: A Wyeth spokesman says there is “no comment.”



Read more: http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/12/wyeth-employee-balks-at-outsourcing-gets-fired/

---

"No comment?" :grr:

[47of74]

1. And we all trust these people enough to put stuff they make in our bodies?

[BrklynLiberal]

2. I hope she ends up owning Wyeth.

[ihavenobias]

3. K & R, to the greatest. n/t

[Sanity Claws]

4. My feeling for what will happen

Wyeth will argue that there is no cognizable claim for alleged wrongful discharge premised on an objection to outsourcing. Nothing in the law prohibits outsourcing; accordingly, there is no law or regulation being violated and nothing for her to blow the whistle on.
As for the claim that outsourcing is a form of national origin or other form of discrimination, Wyeth will argue that its motive was to cut costs, not to discriminate. This argument has been upheld in terms of age discrimination; if an employer fires all of the seasoned workers and replaces them with cheaper inexperienced workers, there is nothing illegal about it.

Bear in mind the laws are written to favor the employers. Thus, this lawsuit won't go anywhere.

[pacalo]

6. Whether outsourcing is a violation is beside the point here.

Her claim is that her comment against the company's outsourcing policy is the cause of her termination. Vindictiveness.

To shore up its potential legal defense to terminate her, the company used the excuse that she had personal e-mails on the company's computer, although, as she pointed out, other employees violated the same policy & were not terminated.

The company would have had a more solid legal reason for terminating her if they had focused on her attitude toward company policy (edited to add: the company's policies, in general -- not this particular outsourcing one), which I'm glad they didn't.

Go get 'em, gal. This lawsuit is a gem for this atrocious policy. I hope there will be many more to come.

[Sanity Claws]

7. Nothing illegal about a company being vindictive

or retaliatory. The issue is whether she engaged in some kind of protected activity. It could be considered protected if she was pointing out a violation of some kind. But outsourcing does not violate any law or regulation.
I did employment law for about 16 years. I know very well how these cases play out.

[pacalo]

11. I'm not an attorney, but I did work in Human Resources in the liaison branch.

That was quite awhile back, so there could have been new laws enacted since then that I'm not aware of -- such as "protected activity."

Back then, those employees who were engaged in pro-union meetings were noted & "watched." Would this not fit into the "protected activity" because they wanted to form a union?

Also, in regard to the lady from the OP, if she had pointed out a violation of sexual harassment, would that be considered "protected activity"?

This "protected activity" is something I'm not familiar with & I don't understand where you're coming from -- sorry. :)

[Sanity Claws]

22. "Protected activity" is a term commonly used

in wrongful discharge cases.
If the wrongful discharge is predicated on retaliation covered by Title VII, then you have to show that the employee was engaged in activity covered by Title VII.
If the wrongful discharge is predicated on a violation of public policy (what is commonly called whistleblowing), then you have to show that the person was somehow engaged in activity covered by the policy at issue. For example, if the employer directed the employee to disable the fire alarm required by a fire code, the employee could refuse to do that and be arguably protected by public policy. If fired, the employee would have a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

[pacalo]

30. Based on what you said, why didn't the employer fire her based on "protected activity"?

Why did they choose to fire her based on a common frowned-upon activity that generally all office workers participate in: personal mail at the office? If this law does exist, why didn't they just fire her for complaining about the company's policy of outsourcing, which was actually putting at risk the company's credibility due to illegible scrawl?

[Xithras]

8. You're right. It's a dead horse.

The email thing may have been a cover, but unless her lawyers can prove a pattern and that the rule is simply being used as a tool for discriminatory termination, it won't get them anywhere. If I create a rule in my company, advertise a rule clearly, allow it to be violated with impunity, and then one day arbitrarily fire someone for it...I would be entirely within my legal rights as an employer. My argument, if challenged, could simply be that I fired the one employee as an example to the others that the rule would be enforced. So long as I can prove that the firing wasn't selective, the termination would be legal.

As for her other arguments; Outsourcing is legal, and there is no valid argument that it amounts to discrimination against American's. That's like saying that it's illegal for a factory to move from New York to Georgia, because the lower wages in Georgia amount to discrimination against New Yorkers. There's no legal argument to be had there. And if she were fired for objecting? Any employee not following company directives to cooperate with outsourcing initiatives is, by definition, not completing their assigned duties as an employee. That is a legitimate reason to terminate.

It's not that I don't sympathize with her, but I do not see any valid legal arguments here.

[pacalo]

12. If a company fires an employee "as an example to others", then that is selective, don't you think?

My argument, if challenged, could simply be that I fired the one employee as an example to the others that the rule would be enforced. So long as I can prove that the firing wasn't selective, the termination would be legal.

And I feel the way you do about employees' cooperation with company policy, but this is not one of those times that I do. There's nothing wrong in what she said; in fact, she was pointing out something that was detrimental to the company's efficiency.

[Sanity Claws]

23. Employment is at will

That means the employer can fire for no reason, a bad reason, a mistaken reason. He just can't fire an employee for an illegal reason. The law recognizes very few illegal reasons for discharge.
Nothing wrong with the discharge being selective, so long as the selection is not on a basis covered by the anti-discrimination laws, such as age, gender, race, etc.

[pacalo]

29. I respectfully disagree.

Unless you mean that it's possible that a stupid employer could fire for no reason, a bad reason, a mistaken reason; just so long as it's based on an anti-discrimination law.

If this case had been brought up against my former employer -- & I'm having a hard time imagining it, as professional & impressive as the company was -- I could see all the HR liaisons scurrying around & perspiring as they gathered background information. It would have been a huge blunder on part of the employer to fire someone on such a lame charge.

Employers can't fire someone without good reason, unless they are willing to give away a huge chunk of money in a settlement, or in the OP's case, lose a case.

[Romulox]

31. You're simply mistaken.

Unless you have a contract to the contrary, you are an "at will" employer that may be fired for: "a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all."

However you may not be fired based on certain characteristics specifically spelled out in Federal Law: race, sex, national origin, religion, etc.

The reason why it is always prudent to nevertheless conduct a thorough investigation prior to any firing is to preemptively head off any accusation that the firing was based on one of the characteristics (or activities) protected by Federal Law.

None of this changes the basic rule, however. Your employer doesn't need a "good reason" to fire you.

[pacalo]

32. I'm sorry, but I believe with all my heart in what I said, based on what I've seen

as someone who has typed termination documents for a Human Resources department.

As I said earlier, in the company I worked for, pro-union activity would have been the comparable sin of the OP's complaint of being fired for bucking the company on its outsourcing. Never, never would the company I worked for have fired someone for engaging in pro-union participation. As I said, their names were noted & they were watched for the purpose of possibly firing them for some other infraction, such as sleeping on the job, theft, insubordination, etc.

If an employer doesn't want you around, they'll get you for something substantial. Complaining about outsourcing is not one of them. Nor is having personal e-mail on an office computer, imo.

[Greyhound]

10. I'm afraid you are right. I went through a similar situation in the 90s under

Robert Reich's DoL, ostensibly a "liberal" administration, for merely answering my subordinates questions about their right to form a union at the company I was working at (I was a manager, so not eligible to join any way).

The company fired me and simply made up a bunch of obvious lies, all of which we had ample evidence to disprove, and the NLRB simply "declined to prosecute".

Needless to say, after seeing that they got away with firing me (the boss), the people did not vote in their union.

[pacalo]

15. Your company was smarter than the company in the OP, although I'm sorry this happened to you.

A pro-union worker was fired for "stealing (small) batteries" when I worked in Human Resources quite awhile back.

That's how they're get you -- they watch until the opportunity presents itself.

The OP company is a piece of work, however. Private e-mails -- when the other employees are just as guilty, including one mentioned by name in her complaint, who, I assume, is part of the management. Duh.

[pacalo]

5. This case looks like a winner so don't settle, Laura. Go all the way, dear.

[Raineyb]

9. This is not good

Oddly enough I used to work for a pharmaceutical company. It is extremely important that the data is legible and complete even if you don't use the data. If we made a mistake on paperwork we had to cross it out once, initial and date it then write the corrected data next to it. Illegible and incomplete paperwork can be grounds for a Quality Issue investigation and can hold up the release of lots.

If Wyeth fired this woman because she said something about the outsourced work and the quality of it you'd better be damn careful with what drugs you take because muddled, incomplete data can hide a multitude of sins.

Regards

[Azlady]

13. I almost wonder if she could have also

been fired because of the almost whistle blowing appearance of her issue with the outsourced bad work & the potential health risks to the end user.... you and me. Go all the way with this Laura, I hope you win.

[pacalo]

16. And the company didn't want this to be a topic for discussion around the work environment.

[OhioChick]

24. And that sure as hell wouldn't be good now, would it? n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. Can't Say I Blame Them Really. She Sounds Like A Disgruntled Employee.

Not sure I fault the employer for wanting to rid themselves of a disgruntled and/or somewhat irrational employee.

[OhioChick]

17. It sounds more like she got shit-canned for her outsourcing stance....

I applaud her for bringing it to light and hope she has a damn good lawyer.

[Raineyb]

18. Muddled and incomplete records are extremely serious in the pharmaceutical biz.

You are not supposed to just fill in the blanks when you don't have the information needed it's fraud and can effect the product and the bosses at a pharmaceutical company damn well knows this.

Your willingness to make light of that is really quite scary.

[Azlady]

19. I agree Raineyb -

I see this as a worker who saw the pitfalls of outsourcing, putting our lives at risk, not as an angry employee.

[Raineyb]

26. I used to work Quality Control for a pharmaceutical company

And when I read the phrase muddled and incomplete paperwork the hair on the back of my neck stood on end. We do GMP training several times a year (Good Manufacturing Practices) and the admittedly cheesy film shows the dangers of bad documentation.

This is a business that will do an investigation if you didn't do a follow-up test when you have 4 high torques in a test when you're only allowed 3 even if the average is fine. This is not a small deal.

Regards

[Skittles]

21. PLEASE

any employee not disgruntled by putting up with outsource garbage has their head up their fucking ass

[ChromeFoundry]

25. How is this scenario any different...

1) You work on a computer at work.
2) The IT department is fired and replaced by the services of a consulting firm that hires temps.
3) You cannot perform your job as well because you now have to wait 4 days to have your password reset.

Fact is, you cannot do your job for 4 days because the new talent does not respond to your needs.

Now, imagine that your boss says... Get this task done in the next hour or you are fired. Is it your fault you can no longer do your job, the consultants or your companies?

As soon as you blame anyone but yourself YOU ARE A DISGRUNTLED AND IRRATIONAL EMPLOYEE??

Give me a goddamn break!

[AngryOldDem]

28. Funny how those few employees left who actually give a damn...

...are now more often than not termed as "disgruntled employees."

Just sayin.'

[Skittles]

20. I sympathize

an unbelievable amount of crap comes from outsourced work

[live love laugh]

27. Wyeth gave my mother breast cancer via Prempro and Premarin. nt