My boss got fired after building a poor reputation / very unethical practices.. she is now suing the employees...??

I'm surprised that those HR files aren't confidential. She has no case, especially in light of the sheer number of complaints. Sounds like she's a complete whack job but it sucks that people like that can bring their crazy into your life with a lawsuit.

HULK BRO wrote:

My boss was fired in January for essentially not being very good at her job, she was very rude, unapproachable and often times was bickering / causing drama at work

These issues may have been the result of mental/emotional issues. If so, your HR complaints could certainly be construed as illegal discrimination and harassment.

Just wanted to point out I live in Colorado an "Employment At Will" state you can be fired at anytime for anything. So how could someone blame HR complaints for getting them fired when you don't even need a reason to be fired here?

She's a typical Hillary loving democrat.

this is a running website

Lieing? Is this some sort of joke?

If you think HR Complaints or even OCI Office of Criminal Investigation files and interviews are confidential then you are uninformed and a nincompoop.

But don't worry, you can learn something.

Anyway, notice that this Supervisor is a woman.

Just saying

The Red Pill (The movie)

Watch it!

No clue about Colorado law, but many jurisdictions recognize a limited privilege in employment law to provide information about employees. It is usually applied where a prospective employer asks a former employer for a reference. The former employer's statements to the prospective employer can be privileged (i.e. not subject to claim for defamation).

I am not sure whether it would apply in the case of an employee making a report about a superior. But I think it does for reporting sexual harassment, etc.

is it Melissa Mayer from Yahoo!?

A couple of thoughts:

Even in employment at will states, you cannot be fired based on your race, or gender (or certain other reasons). So her initial suit may be based on a valid legal principle, even if the underlying facts ultimately don't support her claim.

Secondly, the suits against the subordinates isn't an employment claim, it is a defamation claim; so her employer's right to fire her is really not relevant (I could make a tenuous argument that it is relevant, but that argument would ultimately be a loser).

googler wrote:

is it Melissa Mayer from Yahoo!?

More like Elizabeth Holmes from Theranos.

Learn_something wrote:

If you think HR Complaints or even OCI Office of Criminal Investigation files and interviews are confidential then you are uninformed and a nincompoop.

But don't worry, you can learn something.

Anyway, notice that this Supervisor is a woman.

Just saying

The Red Pill (The movie)

Watch it!

That's "nin-COM-poop".

I'm an in-house lawyer at a large corporation, and I handle employment lawsuits, among other things(never had one in Colorado, though). This is generally right. I'm assuming what happened is that she filed a meritless lawsuit against her former employer for firing her, and in discovery got the files that showed she had been the subject of dozens of complaints. This pretty much kills her suit against the company, which (according to the complaints) has a valid reason for firing her.So she sues the employees who complained instead, saying the employees (not the company) defamed her, damaging her professional reputation and causing her to lose her job. She will lose this suit too, because their complaints are valid/true according to OP. OP, the employees should be defended and indemnified by the company. In many states, including California, you have the right to have the company pay for your lawyers and damages if the actions you were being sued for are part of your job. Most courts would agree that valid complaints (the company can't dispute they're valid - it relied on them in firing the woman) are part of everyone's job and that the company should be the responsible part here.

Smoove wrote:

A couple of thoughts:

Even in employment at will states, you cannot be fired based on your race, or gender (or certain other reasons). So her initial suit may be based on a valid legal principle, even if the underlying facts ultimately don't support her claim.

Secondly, the suits against the subordinates isn't an employment claim, it is a defamation claim; so her employer's right to fire her is really not relevant (I could make a tenuous argument that it is relevant, but that argument would ultimately be a loser).