So, I was taken off my primary duties for 30 days after I refused to sign a counseling chit. The chit was issued because of a Facebook post I made that mentioned my job responsibilities, but it didn’t breach OpSec or anything like that. They wrote on the chit that the only consequence would be a ‘talking to.’ Now, suddenly, I’m being reassigned. Is this retaliation? Can I do anything about it legally?
I’m not sure this counts as retaliation. Retaliation usually involves reporting a crime or violation and then facing consequences for it. Did you report anything?
Fox said:
I’m not sure this counts as retaliation. Retaliation usually involves reporting a crime or violation and then facing consequences for it. Did you report anything?
Nope, I didn’t report anything. Just posted something casual about my work that didn’t even touch on OpSec.
Fox said:
I’m not sure this counts as retaliation. Retaliation usually involves reporting a crime or violation and then facing consequences for it. Did you report anything?
Yeah, then I don’t think this is retaliation in the legal sense. Probably more of a policy enforcement thing.
Did you consult anyone about refusing to sign the chit? That could’ve been a factor in their response.
Lior said:
Did you consult anyone about refusing to sign the chit? That could’ve been a factor in their response.
I didn’t think refusing to sign would escalate things. Isn’t signing just acknowledging receipt, not agreement?
Lior said:
Did you consult anyone about refusing to sign the chit? That could’ve been a factor in their response.
Exactly. Signing usually means you got the chit, not that you agree with it. Maybe they saw it as noncompliance?
Have you looked into your rights or talked to a lawyer? Sounds like they might’ve overstepped a bit.
Dakota said:
Have you looked into your rights or talked to a lawyer? Sounds like they might’ve overstepped a bit.
Not yet, but I’m considering it. Just trying to figure out if it’s worth pursuing legally.
Dakota said:
Have you looked into your rights or talked to a lawyer? Sounds like they might’ve overstepped a bit.
There’s an article from the ABA about hiring lawyers. Might help if you decide to go that route.
Honestly, sounds more like they’re enforcing internal rules rather than retaliating. Did they mention anything else about the post?
Sawyer said:
Honestly, sounds more like they’re enforcing internal rules rather than retaliating. Did they mention anything else about the post?
Nope, just said the post was inappropriate but didn’t break any rules. Still feels excessive to me.
Sawyer said:
Honestly, sounds more like they’re enforcing internal rules rather than retaliating. Did they mention anything else about the post?
Could be they’re just covering their bases. Sometimes leadership wants to set an example, even if it’s harsh.
Might be worth documenting everything, just in case this escalates. You never know when you’ll need a paper trail.
Storm said:
Might be worth documenting everything, just in case this escalates. You never know when you’ll need a paper trail.
Good point. I’ll start keeping track. This whole situation feels so unnecessary, though.
Storm said:
Might be worth documenting everything, just in case this escalates. You never know when you’ll need a paper trail.
Yeah, better safe than sorry. Even if it doesn’t go further, having details helps you understand your case better.