Woman gets suspended

[Racket_Man]

and collects a paycheck for 12 years totalling $300,000. she worked for Norfolk Community Services (from their website it seems to be a community health type organization.

she was orginally suspended for "divulging confidential medical information" but anything after the suspension was apparently lost in some shuffle and her pay was not "suspended" as well. she alledgely continued to receive her regualr paychecks for 12 years.

when a new general manager came in she notices HR's "mistake" and put through the terminatiion process.

now after the "error" is corrected, the woman has, as the article states, finally found her voice after 12 years. she is whinning that she can not collect unemployment bennies, was "wrongfully terminated", her civil right were violated, was discriminated against, and can't access her retirement bennies.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/07..._lnk3%7C219787

yeah nice little gravy train there honey. must be nice. yeah I know that it was partially the NCS's fault but what did you expect: money for nothing????

Money for Nothin video

Wierd Al's take on this LOL

[Cats]

I would think not showing up for work for 12 years would be MORE than enough to legally terminate someone. She hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Now, if she was supposed to be allowed to return to work after her initial suspension, that's one thing. But if that was the case, if they didn't do anything, it's up to HER to speak up and say, "hey, can I have my job back now?"


What baffles me though, is how this error (which initually, I could understand) went undected for TWELVE YEARS. Don't they do perfomance reviews and HR audits now and then? Heck, at my company, every year the HR cabinet is cleaned out and all outdated paperwork and old employee files destroyed. And that's on top of when this is supposed to be done on termination anyway.

[HYHYBT]

I'm curious why she was fired, rather than being put back to work, and also why she was left on suspension so long in the first place. Despite the tone of the article, we know far too little. For instance, do we know whether the suspension was supposed to be for a fixed length of time or indefinite? Do we know whether, if the latter, they told her not to bother them but to wait until she was called back, either from the beginning or after, perhaps, her annoying someone with questions about it once too often early on? I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's certainly within possibility based solely on the facts presented.

Not showing up for work *when your employer tells you not to show up for work* is not a fireable offense. If they're firing her for the original violation 12 years later, that's different; otherwise the thing to do is to tell her the suspension is over and get back to work.

[bainsidhe]

I'm sure additional details about her suspension and firing will come out eventually. Either way, this woman is an idiot. Now that the lawsuit is public, there's no way they won't ask for all those funds back. The article says she was supposed to be suspended without pay. Sounds like a lot of shady stuff was going on. This is going to get messy.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/no-c...tting-at-home/

[DrFaroohk]

lol I hope she wins her lawsuit. Many employers are on serious power trips and it would be nice to have one just be sucker punched like this. bring them down a few pegs.

some of the comments on the website seemed to indicate she should have self reported this. nope. she is not responsible for the company's oversight, especially since she was on suspension at the time and not working for them. As for her being fired, what was she fired for? She was already suspended for revealing information, so it wasn't for that. for not showing up? she was never scheduled. for not reporting the money? not her problem. she's not responsible for the company's finances.

[Sleepwalker]

You are still usually responsible for money given to you mistakenly. If a bank deposits a million dollars into your account by accident, and you spend it, you are on the hook for it, since you know it didn't belong to you. She knowingly took payment for services not rendered.

[Andara Bledin]

Indeed. If you know you are not legally entitled to the money, you can get in a lot of trouble if you don't give it back.

^-.-^

[bainsidhe]

That's the thing though, there's so many articles with different tidbits of information. One article claimed she DID try to alert HR and got the brushoff. An article also claimed she attempted to return to work and was told to continue waiting. A couple articles mentioned that someone inside was falsifying timesheets so she could continue earning pay, yet authorities said she wasn't involved in this alleged fraud.

So your guess is as good as mine. Details keep changing and only time will bring out the truth. Either way, she doesn't deserve that money. Gonna stink for her when she has to pay it back plus cost of benefits.

Just a thought, I wonder if the company can recoup payroll taxes from the government for the last 12 years. Hmmm.

[DrFaroohk]

So she should've reported it? The problem I have with that mentality is there are plenty of situations where I've been wronged in some way only to have people remind me that it's my job to watch out for myself. People are allowed to screw me over because I should be vigilant for my own interests, and it's not their fault if I'm not vigilant. And I feel that attitudes like that should be across the board. either all the time, or never at all. So if it can't apply to me it can't apply to them. I should look out for my own interests, and they should keep track of their own money.

[Greenday]

So she should've reported it? The problem I have with that mentality is there are plenty of situations where I've been wronged in some way only to have people remind me that it's my job to watch out for myself. People are allowed to screw me over because I should be vigilant for my own interests, and it's not their fault if I'm not vigilant. And I feel that attitudes like that should be across the board. either all the time, or never at all. So if it can't apply to me it can't apply to them. I should look out for my own interests, and they should keep track of their own money.

So if you know you are mistakenly receiving money that doesn't actually belong to you, why isn't that stealing?

[DrFaroohk]

So if you know you are mistakenly receiving money that doesn't actually belong to you, why isn't that stealing?

It's a matter of intent. Stealing involves an action on someone's part. For instance, swapping the price tag on a piece of merchandise to get it cheaper is stealing. But if the thing was already mis-priced you're not obligated to inform the store.

[Greenday]

It's a matter of intent. Stealing involves an action on someone's part. For instance, swapping the price tag on a piece of merchandise to get it cheaper is stealing. But if the thing was already mis-priced you're not obligated to inform the store.

So when the price tag on a item says, "Candy Bar $0.99" even though you are buying a steak and you know it, you don't think that's stealing.

[linguist]

So she should've reported it? The problem I have with that mentality is there are plenty of situations where I've been wronged in some way only to have people remind me that it's my job to watch out for myself. People are allowed to screw me over because I should be vigilant for my own interests, and it's not their fault if I'm not vigilant. And I feel that attitudes like that should be across the board. either all the time, or never at all. So if it can't apply to me it can't apply to them. I should look out for my own interests, and they should keep track of their own money.

a woe is me, victimhood mentality doesn't make one any more entitled to money (or anything else) that doesn't belong to them, even if given in error. even if someone lacks the ethics to self report when given something in error, they are still obligated to return it once the error is discovered.

[Andara Bledin]

This article at WAVY-TV gives more details on her suspensions (the first was for bringing a weapon to the office, and the second was for revealing a client's confidential information) and includes a link to a civil lawsuit filed on Friday against her and CSB for return of the $320,000.00 that was paid out.

A quick timeline:
The mistake was found and moneys stopped in August of 2010. The investigation was turned over to Virginia's Attorney General in September, which is when this hit the news for the first time. In January, it was revealed that the state would not be pursuing criminal charges at that time, but that it had handed over the information to the FBI, as the funds were from federal sources, not just the state. The current spate of updates is due to the fact that Virginia has officially dropped any criminal charges against any of the seven people involved (McGlone, the former executive director, and five other employees who were allowed to resign or fired). However, there is the civil case now filed for the recovery of the funds. The FBI is not commenting on their involvement and are likely still investigating.

I would actually be surprised if the FBI declined to pursue charges against somebody. How is it possible for someone to sign off on zero-hour worksheets, sign off on benefits sheets, and sign off on raises for twelve years without realizing that perhaps something isn't right?

As for the questions regarding whether she should have reported it: The answer is absolutely yes. Any time you are the recipient of anything that does not and should not belong to you, whether it be goods or funds, you become guilty of theft in some form. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either a hypocrite (you certainly wouldn't feel the same if you were on the other end) or a sociopath.

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

So when the price tag on a item says, "Candy Bar $0.99" even though you are buying a steak and you know it, you don't think that's stealing.

That's specific. That's not a misprice. It doesn't say "steak 99 cents" it says "Candy bar 99 cents".

If it said "steak 99 cents" even though I know the steak is probably more than 99 cents it's still not my problem.

I'd be interested in seeing the response if it was a member of the company on here writing about how much it sucks that because he was too lazy to look over his books properly, he accidently paid someone for 12 years. A good handful of people would be saying "Tough shit, do your books better."