Protection from the State of California (Part 1)

Protection from the State of California (Part 1)

Jaffe’s final email advised me to engage an attorney as soon as possible because I had just one year from my termination to assert my rights.  According to the Labor Commissioner’s web site, though, I had only six months to come to them about a violation of the State’s whistleblower protection law.  It took a week to assemble, but I sent my letter to the Labor Commissioner’s office on December 1, 2014, two days before the deadline.

My 20-page complaint, including fifteen pages of details, identified seven violations and provided a timeline that connected HomeFirst’s retaliations to my internal and external reports of problems.  My case.  A letter auto-signed by a senior deputy labor commissioner in the State’s investigation unit said she had been assigned to my case and she would be contacting me for an interview.  Two weeks later, after hearing nothing from her, I emailed asking when she would like to talk.  After another silent week, now in mid-January 2015, I called the State office and spoke with a woman, who said that, actually, no one had been assigned to my case yet.  Someone should be assigned to the case in six to eight months.  In the meantime, HomeFirst would be sent a portion of the form I had submitted and would be asked to reply.  I could then comment on their reply, she said.

After six months of silence, I called again.  A man, Juan, to whom I would speak regularly, said that a deputy had not been assigned to the case yet, and the backlog was about eight months.  HomeFirst had been asked to respond to my complaint, and Layton identified herself as HomeFirst’s attorney.  She did not, however, answer the State’s request.  I called again every month or so after that.  Nine months after I filed my complaint, Juan apologized.  They were short-staffed because of retirements, he said, but someone should be assigned in four to six weeks.  Not to worry, though: HomeFirst’s delay in responding would not slow their consideration of my case.  Six weeks later he said a deputy should be assigned in a month or two.  On the anniversary of my filing the complaint, Juan explained that OSHA complaints are researched first and the files of one officer, who had retired recently, were being distributed to other officers.  Some of the files were two years old, he admitted.

Finally in January 2016, although an investigator had still not been assigned, the State sent me a letter with HomeFirst’s rebuttal to my complaint.  The letter was auto-signed by the same senior deputy labor commission who had written me a year earlier.  I would have a month to reply, or my complaint would closed.  Juan informed me that assignment of an officer is usually made after the office receives the company’s rebuttal and it asks the complainant to reply.  That was not what he said earlier, but, anyway, we seemed to be moving forward at last.

HomeFirst’s statement was little more than a copy-and-paste from its November 2014 brief.  The facts were as Layton called them earlier: I was the one who misbehaved, and then I cried whistleblower after HomeFirst responded within its rights.

I decided that this might be my last opportunity to state my case.  My 155-page reply included a paragraph-by-paragraph critique of HomeFirst’s rebuttal and a detailed narrative supported by 122 pages of emails and other documents backing my contention that I was fired in retaliation for my whistleblowing.  In mid-February, Juan said that a deputy was now assigned and she had just been sent the material.  She would contact me to discuss the case.  Two weeks later, I have not received written notification of her assignment, and she has not contacted me.  I will check again with Juan in a few weeks.

Almost two years after I was fired, the State process seems excruciatingly long.  While I wait for the next steps, let me describe what all the whistleblowing was about and what resulted from my reports.