Oracle sued by ex-sales manager who claims she was fired in retaliation for suing former bosses

A software sales manager hired by Oracle last June and fired three months later has filed a lawsuit against the database giant. Why? She claims Big Red sacked her unlawfully after she filed racial-discrimination charges against a previous employer, cloud software provider Infor. In her complaint [PDF], filed in US district …

[Bronek Kozicki]

HireRight

One of my past employers used HireRight for my screening - it might be that they screwed up the screening or, perhaps more likely, that Infor falsely stated that she is still employed by them. So the discrimination by Oracle is not the only possible explanation - although it could be the most likely one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: HireRight

I think you've missed the point.

She claims it was a pretext to fire her and the real reason was her discrimination claim

[Gordon 10]

Maybe...?

I dont know if there is discrimination here or not but this appears to be only correlation at this point not causality.

Another valid explanation is that its pure incompetence on Oracles part. It reads as if they were still conducting employment checks post hiring her. It appears Oracle believed that they had grounds to fire her due to the incorrect employment report. Every thing could have likely played on the basis of the employment report. My dealings with those kind of agencies in the past have been less than stellar.

(Example - We need your GCSE certificates, but why you have my degree certificate, we just do - computer says no otherwise.)

[Nick Kew]

To paraphrase ...

To find oneself in legal dispute with one employer might be considered a misfortune, but two surely speak of trouble!

Might it have been time to Stop Digging when the Equal Opportunities folks dismissed her first complaint?

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Re: To paraphrase ...

"but two surely speak of trouble!"

Yeah, especially when one has apparently directly led to the other! -->

[el kabong]

"...hired by Oracle last June and fired three months later..."

So, she is yet to be fired, why the rush to sue? Well, acting preemptively never hurts, I guess.

Maybe she believes ther's a chance she can keep her job, she's to fired only in September after all, if she acts fast perhaps she can avert the process.

[aks]

Re: "...hired by Oracle last June and fired three months later..."

She sounds like poison. Making money by suing rather than working. Oracle (and all other companies who employ people to actually do an honest day's work) will be spending more time filtering out such people in future.

[psdrake67]

Re: "...hired by Oracle last June and fired three months later..."

"last June" means June 2018. June 2019 would be "this June". June 2020 is "next June". Definitions for the first two become less clear toward the end of the year. By January 2020 "last" will definitely mean 2019 but "this" and "next" will probably both mean June 2020 for a few months at least. Fuzzy logic is required.

[Pascal Monett]

"the employer doesn't want in its midst an employee who dares to file a claim against the employer"

Thus, the employer terminates the employees' contract wrongly, thus creating a situation where the employee is justified in filing a claim against the employer.

Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy . . .

[el kabong]

That means look at claims filed against others in the past and act preemptively.

No prophecy required.

Duh!!!

[Fat Bob]

If Infor's took action as a result of bringing the discrimination case, could it be possible that the employee was suspended rather than terminated? This would account for Infor stating that she was still (technically) employed. This would also explain Oracle's actions.

Not being familiar with 'murica, is it common there to fire people purely because they have brought legal proceedings against another unconnected company?

Why would oracle use a personal gmail address unless it had been provided by the employee? Having provided a personal address, why would it not be monitored?

Smells to me like a case for Hanlon's Razor.

[John Brown (no body)]

"Why would oracle use a personal gmail address unless it had been provided by the employee? Having provided a personal address, why would it not be monitored?"

Probably for use during the application process. Once employed, HR should always use official channels as a matter of policy, not least for traceability and accountability. I can easily go a week or so without checking my personal email account. We don't all spend out entire lives on line. Most people who have my personal email account are people I actually know and meet face to face regularly. Anything important or urgent and they;d phone me or me them.

[a_yank_lurker]

@Fat Bob - Major EEO laws at the federal level cover discrimination in hiring, promotion, firing, etc. If there is a semi-competent HR department these cases are devilishly hard to prove. Otherwise, most states are 'at will' for employment with an employer being able to terminate someone at any time. However, who gets dinged for unemployment benefits is based on the stated cause by the employer and the situation. Some states have stricter employment law (not that much stricter) so one might be able to win at the state level while not being able to proceed at the federal.

I did not notice the state this occurred.

But this being Leisure Suit Larry and his Minions I would not be surprised if there isn't some merit to the claims. Too many have sued the Minions alleging discrimination against various categories that should make one suspicious even if some of the cases are extremely weak.

[Sherrie Ludwig]

How would the employer have her "personal gmail account" if she does not use it frequently? Did she give it to them as a means of contacting her? If so, case dismissed with prejudice. no discrimination required. She in effect "ghosted" them.

[Dedobot]

"Broadus, it's claimed, didn't see the message because she rarely checks her personal Gmail "

Mmmm ok,

Truly believable story.

The sjw will be pwned in the court.

[intrigid]

Is it always a mistake to sue an employer?

Let's assume she's right. Let's assume 2 consecutive employers massively dropped the ball, wronged her, and she wins several years salary as compensation.

Then what? What employer in their right mind would ever hire this person again? A simple Google search, from then on, will reveal that this person sued her most recent 2 employers. Those radioactivity levels are rarely found outside Fukushima.

Unless you're rapidly approaching retirement age, you're simply better off in the long run not doing this, no matter how right you are.

[FozzyBear]

Not sure about U.S. in Australia there is usually a minimum 3 month probation/cooling off period. Anytime during probation, or on probation review either the employer or employee can walk away without reason or prejudice.

Definitely not a fan of oracle but ....