Was working at my last job like working for Hamas?
[quote]Criticism of Israel that delegitimizes the Jewish state, dehumanizes Israeli citizens, refers to Israelis as murderers, that is defamatory or amounts to a reversal of perpetrator-victim roles has been viewed by some as anti-Semitic in nature.
The themes of delegitimization, dehumanization, murderers, defamation, and victim-perpetrator reversal seem to parallel written statements made about me by my former employer, Akin Gump.
1. Delegitimization
Akin Gump states: Claimant, Gary Freedman, was initially employed by Respondent law firm, Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. as a temporary employee [March 1988] for a specific project (See Attachment B). Later Claimant was employed as a full-time legal assistant ("paralegal") [August 1, 1989] to manage massive amounts of documents for a major client (See Attachment C). Shortly thereafter, the client filed for bankruptcy protection [March 4, 1989] and eventually the legal work diminished. In an attempt to find comparable work for the Claimant, a decision was made to transfer him to the Litigation Support Department [March 1990].
The employer emphasizes my hiring as a temporary employee and, significantly, misrepresents two facts, namely, (1) that the referenced client, Eastern Airlines filed for bankruptcy protection on March 4, 1989 and (2) I was granted full-time status effective August 1, 1989. In fact, contrary to Akin Gump's representation, I was granted full time status in August 1989 despite the Eastern bankruptcy filing. In mid-June 1988, the firm's legal assistant administrator, Margarita Babb assured me that at some future time when my services on Eastern Airlines were no longer needed I would be assigned to other paralegal tasks. Akin Gump omits the fact that in March 1990 when I was transferred to the Litigation Support Department, my newly-assigned supervisor Chris Robertson assured me, "a supervisory position is a distinct possibility." I was subsequently not granted supervisory duties.
All in all, Akin Gump trivializes the nature of my employment as if to say, "Well, we didn't really need him -- he was just a temp -- but out of the kindness of our hearts we tried to accommodate him." This constitutes delegitimization of my employment.
2. Dehumanization
Akin Gump states: His behavior was described by several employees, including his direct supervisor as bizarre: he demanded isolation; he was volatile; and he frightened many of his co-workers.
Akin Gump does not support this allegation with any facts. The description of me has a dehumanizing tone. Five months prior to my termination, my supervisor described me in a written evaluation: “Gary seems as close to the perfect employee as it is possible to get! A self-starter--he works efficiently and consistently enjoying maximum productivity on a daily basis. He is reliable, hard working and extremely responsible. [AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT]: Gary has recently moved down to the terrace level and has truly become a part of the Lit Support team after being isolated on the ninth floor. He is both communicative and personable and has made the adjustment well. [AREAS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT]: None!”
3. Murderers: A brief time after my termination, after I left the firm's office, Robertson advised her employees that she feared I was homicidal.
A coworker later reported to me: "The only thing I knew is that Chris [Robertson] sent the E-mail over the system, and she wanted all of us in the office, and the next thing, she said, 'no, forget about it.' She said, 'Well, you all know that Gary, he's gone, and they're coming to change the locks because Gary may come back and he may kill me or something.'"
"All I know, Chris [Robertson] called a meeting. She had sent an E-mail. And then, all of a sudden she canceled the meeting. She just said, 'Oh.' And she said, 'they're coming to change the locks. They should be down here because we're afraid he may come down here and try to kill us or something.'"
4. Defamation
Akin Gump alleges that a psychiatrist who had not assessed me personally opined that I appeared to suffer from a paranoid condition and that I might become violent. Akin Gump's written publication of this purported "psychiatric assessment" is libelous. A psychiatrist may not offer a professional opinion about an individual she has not examined personally.
5. Victim-perpetrator reversal
Akin Gump terminated my employment days after I filed an internal harassment complaint against supervisor Robertson and several coworkers. I was the harassment victim. In a factually unsupported allegation, Akin Gump reversed victim-perpetrator roles by alleging that I was not harassed, rather it was I who was harassing coworkers: " . . . his continued presence in the firm has been extremely disruptive. Reported outbursts and arguably bizarre behavior have made it uncomfortable and sometimes disruptive for many of his co-workers -- some of whom have voiced fear in working with or nearby him. In addition he is very difficult to supervise." Additionally, Akin Gump concealed that I reported I was harassed by supervisor Robertson. In Akin Gump's representation I, the harassment victim was depicted as the perpetrator harasser.
Note that in subsequent unrelated litigation a black Akin Gump employee alleged about supervisor Robertson in a Title VII complaint:
11. Plaintiff's immediate supervisor [Christine Robertson] engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against blacks, including engaging in offensive conduct such as telling racial jokes, making comments to the effect that blacks are perceived as not working as hard as white employees, are shiftless, lazy, incompetent; favoring white employees over black employees in work assignments, while generally avoiding black employees.
12. In July, 1991, Ms. Robertson called a meeting of three of the black employees under her supervision, including plaintiff, and asked them if they thought she was prejudiced against blacks. She explained that her black male receptionist had accused her of being prejudiced against blacks and she wanted to know whether they shared that view. All three employees responded in the affirmative and provided her the reasons they felt that way, giving her examples of the way she treated blacks differently than whites.
_____________________________________________
My purpose here is not to allege that I was a victim of anti-Semitism. Rather I am raising the possibility that the State of Israel is a victim of an international mobbing campaign.
Mobbing, as a sociological term, means bullying of an individual by a group, in any context, such as a family, peer group, school, workplace, neighborhood, community, or online. When it occurs as physical and emotional abuse in the workplace, such as "ganging up" by co-workers, subordinates, or superiors, to force someone out of the workplace through rumor, innuendo, intimidation, humiliation, discrediting, and isolation, it is also referred to as malicious, nonsexual, non-racial/racial, general harassment.
[/quote]
The themes of delegitimization, dehumanization, murderers, defamation, and victim-perpetrator reversal seem to parallel written statements made about me by my former employer, Akin Gump.
1. Delegitimization
Akin Gump states: Claimant, Gary Freedman, was initially employed by Respondent law firm, Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. as a temporary employee [March 1988] for a specific project (See Attachment B). Later Claimant was employed as a full-time legal assistant ("paralegal") [August 1, 1989] to manage massive amounts of documents for a major client (See Attachment C). Shortly thereafter, the client filed for bankruptcy protection [March 4, 1989] and eventually the legal work diminished. In an attempt to find comparable work for the Claimant, a decision was made to transfer him to the Litigation Support Department [March 1990].
The employer emphasizes my hiring as a temporary employee and, significantly, misrepresents two facts, namely, (1) that the referenced client, Eastern Airlines filed for bankruptcy protection on March 4, 1989 and (2) I was granted full-time status effective August 1, 1989. In fact, contrary to Akin Gump's representation, I was granted full time status in August 1989 despite the Eastern bankruptcy filing. In mid-June 1988, the firm's legal assistant administrator, Margarita Babb assured me that at some future time when my services on Eastern Airlines were no longer needed I would be assigned to other paralegal tasks. Akin Gump omits the fact that in March 1990 when I was transferred to the Litigation Support Department, my newly-assigned supervisor Chris Robertson assured me, "a supervisory position is a distinct possibility." I was subsequently not granted supervisory duties.
All in all, Akin Gump trivializes the nature of my employment as if to say, "Well, we didn't really need him -- he was just a temp -- but out of the kindness of our hearts we tried to accommodate him." This constitutes delegitimization of my employment.
2. Dehumanization
Akin Gump states: His behavior was described by several employees, including his direct supervisor as bizarre: he demanded isolation; he was volatile; and he frightened many of his co-workers.
Akin Gump does not support this allegation with any facts. The description of me has a dehumanizing tone. Five months prior to my termination, my supervisor described me in a written evaluation: “Gary seems as close to the perfect employee as it is possible to get! A self-starter--he works efficiently and consistently enjoying maximum productivity on a daily basis. He is reliable, hard working and extremely responsible. [AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT]: Gary has recently moved down to the terrace level and has truly become a part of the Lit Support team after being isolated on the ninth floor. He is both communicative and personable and has made the adjustment well. [AREAS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT]: None!”
3. Murderers: A brief time after my termination, after I left the firm's office, Robertson advised her employees that she feared I was homicidal.
A coworker later reported to me: "The only thing I knew is that Chris [Robertson] sent the E-mail over the system, and she wanted all of us in the office, and the next thing, she said, 'no, forget about it.' She said, 'Well, you all know that Gary, he's gone, and they're coming to change the locks because Gary may come back and he may kill me or something.'"
"All I know, Chris [Robertson] called a meeting. She had sent an E-mail. And then, all of a sudden she canceled the meeting. She just said, 'Oh.' And she said, 'they're coming to change the locks. They should be down here because we're afraid he may come down here and try to kill us or something.'"
4. Defamation
Akin Gump alleges that a psychiatrist who had not assessed me personally opined that I appeared to suffer from a paranoid condition and that I might become violent. Akin Gump's written publication of this purported "psychiatric assessment" is libelous. A psychiatrist may not offer a professional opinion about an individual she has not examined personally.
5. Victim-perpetrator reversal
Akin Gump terminated my employment days after I filed an internal harassment complaint against supervisor Robertson and several coworkers. I was the harassment victim. In a factually unsupported allegation, Akin Gump reversed victim-perpetrator roles by alleging that I was not harassed, rather it was I who was harassing coworkers: " . . . his continued presence in the firm has been extremely disruptive. Reported outbursts and arguably bizarre behavior have made it uncomfortable and sometimes disruptive for many of his co-workers -- some of whom have voiced fear in working with or nearby him. In addition he is very difficult to supervise." Additionally, Akin Gump concealed that I reported I was harassed by supervisor Robertson. In Akin Gump's representation I, the harassment victim was depicted as the perpetrator harasser.
Note that in subsequent unrelated litigation a black Akin Gump employee alleged about supervisor Robertson in a Title VII complaint:
11. Plaintiff's immediate supervisor [Christine Robertson] engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against blacks, including engaging in offensive conduct such as telling racial jokes, making comments to the effect that blacks are perceived as not working as hard as white employees, are shiftless, lazy, incompetent; favoring white employees over black employees in work assignments, while generally avoiding black employees.
12. In July, 1991, Ms. Robertson called a meeting of three of the black employees under her supervision, including plaintiff, and asked them if they thought she was prejudiced against blacks. She explained that her black male receptionist had accused her of being prejudiced against blacks and she wanted to know whether they shared that view. All three employees responded in the affirmative and provided her the reasons they felt that way, giving her examples of the way she treated blacks differently than whites.
_____________________________________________
My purpose here is not to allege that I was a victim of anti-Semitism. Rather I am raising the possibility that the State of Israel is a victim of an international mobbing campaign.
Mobbing, as a sociological term, means bullying of an individual by a group, in any context, such as a family, peer group, school, workplace, neighborhood, community, or online. When it occurs as physical and emotional abuse in the workplace, such as "ganging up" by co-workers, subordinates, or superiors, to force someone out of the workplace through rumor, innuendo, intimidation, humiliation, discrediting, and isolation, it is also referred to as malicious, nonsexual, non-racial/racial, general harassment.
[/quote]
