Re: a complaint letter/ any thoughts?

February 8, 1999

At 03:14 PM 2/8/99 -0500, you wrote:

<snip>

> My company is offering an out-of-court settlement on my federal

>suit in which they will agree to never force anyone into a 12-step

>program again in exchange for my dropping any and all present and future

>legal and professional complaints against Mr. R.F. " Creep " , the EAP

>manager. It's really hard for me to feel thrilled about this, though my

>attorney calls it " a great victory for the Constitution. " The idea of

>The Creep emerging unscathed and ready to force other people into 9

>months of phony " treatment " for a nonexistent " disease " (as long as the

>mandated " self-help " meetings aren't AA) is sickening. Oh well, I guess

>I should try to work on " an attitude of gratitude " as the steppers say.

>I have my job, my co-workers are behind me, and in 7 years I can retire

>and get the hell out of this lunatic company.

>~Rita

Is this a good result? The inclusion of thwe word " future " bothers me. I

wonder if this doesn't leave the door open for this EAP person to behave

badly/unprofessionally/illegally towards you in the future in some way and

to do so without the risk risk of any action being taken by you, since you

would presumably be bound by this agreement regardless of what he does in

future.

Joe Berenbaum

------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 8, 1999

Hi, Rita,

It is a good sign that your company wants to settle, but there are a couple

things that I see as red flags.

" Future " complaints: I hope the language is a lot tighter than this.

Retaliatory moves should be excepted, also complaints that are not the subject

of your current lawsuit. What if he breaks your jaw? Will you be allowed to

complain? Against him personally for medical expense and pain and suffering?

To the police for the assault? To his licensing board (whatever that may be)

for unethical behavior?

Not " forcing anyone into 12-step treatment " : Who will monitor this? How will

anyone be sure that they are not? They have a contract with their present

12-step provider; is that provider a party to the lawsuit? If not, isn't the

contract still valid? Are they required to contract with the lowest bidder?

What if, in future, the lowest bidder is a 12-step provider? I have gotten the

impression that your employer is a state agency, tho I may be wrong, but if I am

right, note that state agencies are bound by numerous federal and state

regulations regarding procurement, which your lawsuit probably cannot affect.

As to this issue, too, note that most treatment providers will insist they are

not 12-step programs, and AA will insist they have no affiliation with treatment

programs (because they " have no opinion on outside issues " ). Somehow treatment

providers and AA have gotten people to buy into this notion for years. This is

a huge loophole, and permits the treatment provider to continue to promote AA

and the 12-steps while your employer can state that they are not forcing anyone

to participate in a 12-step program.

Perhaps you and your lawyer have thought of all these things, and probably the

settlement language is tighter than your letter suggests. But even then -- what

about monetary damages for you? Surely you deserve more than a change of

behavior on your employer's part, which you probably will not even be able to

verify.

I don't know how far you have progressed into the lawsuit, whether it is only at

the complaint stage, whether there have been motions to dismiss and if so,

whether those motions were denied, whether there has been discovery and if so,

how much, and so forth. If your employer wants to settle, however, you have the

upper hand, so wring them out. This is not a stone you are bleeding, it is a

living, breathing, human institution.

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

> Good to hear from you, Tommy. That's great news about your appeal!

>Maybe you can give the ACLU another call? You never know with them.

>

> , of vs. Coughlin, also had no resources.

>Interestingly, although he was an avowed atheist and had no connection

>to Judaism, an Amicus Curiae brief was filed for him by the American

>Jewish Congress. Are you familiar with the case?

>http://www.law.cornell.edu/ny/ctap/l96_0137.htm