I would like to preface my following statements with an assertion that I completely understand the viewpoints, opinions and instructions of both my supervisor our HR department. I also completely agree with their need to enforce the rules of conduct as outlined by Merrill Corporation. It is my sincere pledge to redouble my diligence in following these rules. Although, I do agree with their policies, in as far as they are designed to protect me and the company with whom I am employed, I cannot agree with the process in which these policies are administered and feel compelled to expand upon my reasoning due to the fact that there is no real avenue for my defense other than a personal statement in my own record file. This disagreement does not simply lie with Merrill or Snell & Wilmer, but with the way that we as a society litigate and deal with harassment in the work place in general.
I was asked, during my interview on December 2, 2010 to define the concept of Due Process. Since this question came from someone who is responsible for my adjudication I would like to express my interpretation of this concept. To quote The Electronic Law Library “Due process is best defined in one word--fairness. Throughout the U.S.'s history, its constitutions, statutes and case law have provided standards for fair treatment”. “The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law. A due process claim is cognizable only if there is a recognized liberty or property interest at stake. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 69 (1972).” Since this has obvious bearing on my livelihood, it is fair to surmise that this falls under the “property” clause of the 4th amendment. Throughout this investigation the only answer to my plea for fairness was, “That’s just the way it is.”
My superiors did all but admit that this situation is unfair. The reasons for this unfairness, in my humble opinion are as follows:
1) For any rule to be fair in its application, it must function universally for everyone who is subject to it. After all, the very reason these rules exist is to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and equitably. Since this rule deals with subjective criteria that can be affected by context and preconception, there is no way to apply it fairly to everyone. Reason dictates that any application of an arbitrary rule to subjective situations and behavior is illogical and unfair.
2) I subscribe to the romantic notion that resolution can only be achieved through understanding. I only want to be treated like a human being, but in this case I am not given even that privilege. Instead I am processed through a stream of intermediaries who were not present at the time of the alleged comment which I am told, was not even directed towards the complaining party. It is designed to avoid any confrontation or discomfort to my accuser. This leads me to question how offended this person was since they lack the basic conviction to see this through to its conclusion. Therefore this situation has no chance of reaching any real resolution other than the harassment of someone who did nothing other than state a matter of fact.
3) The result is a set of unsupported accusations being made to people whose job is to defend callow individuals without the ability fix their own problems or mind their own business. Since the accuser crafts the first impression of the events to the very individuals who are assigned to adjudicate the matter, it is difficult to believe that the disposition of my judges towards me is any less than cynical and at best is tainted by preconception. I have been assured that it is not the case, but with neither proper arbitration nor the ability to confront one’s accuser, it is difficult to provide an adequate defense and difficult for me to grant the benefit of the doubt to those who refuse confer me the same benefit. Ironically, the matter is resolved with brute force by placing me on a trial whose opening statement is an accusation. The sixth amendment states “the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Once again I fail to see how these clauses are not applicable to these cases.
My entire career here at Snell & Wilmer has been fraught with one simple conflict: That of thoughtful communication and intellect vs. ignorance and cynicism. I do not seek anything other than to be understood and acknowledged. I am a real flesh and blood fallible person with a great deal of integrity and personal accountability. There has never been a situation in my career where I have shunned responsibility for any of my errors which is much more than I can say for the vast majority of the people I am forced to call my peers. It is my sincerest opinion that Ron and HR have done everything in their power to deal with this unfortunate misunderstanding with fairness and respect to everyone involved. Unfortunately, it is also my opinion that the rules by which we are all forced to play are severely flawed and serve to victimize more than champion.
Respectfully,
Jim Sandoval
No comments:
Post a Comment