Medical subject wrongfully banned by misrepresentation of a hostile employee

[kapeedmaro]

And your evidence that you were removed from the screening for this reason and not because you gave them an argument about the cell phone is...?

My friend, I TEACH employers how to recognize sexual harassment and what to do about it. Don't try to tell me when you've got a viable argument or not.

I was not removed from the screening, I was asked to come in as a backup and told that while I probably would not be needed for that group, I would be rolled into the next group (pending good vitals of course.) As I expected, I was not needed for that group, which was no problem at all, and was told to come back in 10 days. I get a call two days ago out of the blue telling me that I'm perma banned for using my phone. First of all, I established that I have been doing this for more than a decade, so I'm not just talking out of my ass. I've never seen anyone harassed over their phone anywhere as much as I've been harassed at this site. Combine that with a plethora of unwanted attention and I know something is up. I'm trying to figure out how I can prove it, honestly, I'm not quite sure how as of yet. I don't want to sue, I just want to find someway to remove this BS ban, but if I can't, I'm going to do whatever I can to rectify the situation. Not being able to use that site is going to cost me about 7,000$ a year on average (thought lately it has been going up.)

I understand it is really easy to judge that guy on the other side of the screen and dismiss everything he says, and for whatever reason, people seem to enjoy that. That is what is upsetting me. I feel like people are not taking the time to understand what I'm saying and responding with personal judgements on my character rather than helping to figure this out, which is something I would be -incredibly- grateful for. But it is hard for me to be grateful for people who don't give enough to even figure out my situation but want to pass judgements.

Now as for trying to dismiss what I said because you have experience in the subject, that is a strawman argument. You can approach my argument logically, and I will gladly consider and discuss things with you, but using your experience to attack my situation, rather than using the logic that comes with that experience to help me figure out my situation is a fallacy.

 

[kapeedmaro]

If you are convinced you have a case, then see an attorney in your area and pay to have all facts personally reviewed. You do not have to convince us of anything - and, from the looks of it, you aren't going to be able to do so anyway.

I didn't come here to convince in the first place. I thought this was a forum where people came because they wanted to help those who sought help with legal issues could possibly figure out options. So far the only option given is one that I am already aware of.

 

[quincy]

I was not removed from the screening, I was asked to come in as a backup and told that while I probably would not be needed for that group, I would be rolled into the next group (pending good vitals of course.) As I expected, I was not needed for that group, which was no problem at all, and was told to come back in 10 days. I get a call two days ago out of the blue telling me that I'm perma banned for using my phone. First of all, I established that I have been doing this for more than a decade, so I'm not just talking out of my ass. I've never seen anyone harassed over their phone anywhere as much as I've been harassed at this site. Combine that with a plethora of unwanted attention and I know something is up. I'm trying to figure out how I can prove it, honestly, I'm not quite sure how as of yet. I don't want to sue, I just want to find someway to remove this BS ban, but if I can't, I'm going to do whatever I can to rectify the situation. Not being able to use that site is going to cost me about 7,000$ a year on average (thought lately it has been going up.)

I understand it is really easy to judge that guy on the other side of the screen and dismiss everything he says, and for whatever reason, people seem to enjoy that. That is what is upsetting me. I feel like people are not taking the time to understand what I'm saying and responding with personal judgements on my character rather than helping to figure this out, which is something I would be -incredibly- grateful for. But it is hard for me to be grateful for people who don't give enough to even figure out my situation but want to pass judgements.

Now as for trying to dismiss what I said because you have experience in the subject, that is a strawman argument. You can approach my argument logically, and I will gladly consider and discuss things with you, but using your experience to attack my situation, rather than using the logic that comes with that experience to help me figure out my situation is a fallacy.

SEE AN ATTORNEY IN YOUR AREA! Seriously, kapeedmaro, you are continuing to argue whatever case you think you have with those who do not see that you have one. Pay to have an attorney in your area tell you what s/he thinks.

 

[kapeedmaro]

SEE AN ATTORNEY IN YOUR AREA! Seriously, kapeedmaro, you are continuing to argue whatever case you think you have with those who do not see that you have one. Pay to have an attorney in your area tell you what s/he thinks.

I'm not trying to convince you, and I'm not even trying to argue with you. The only reason there is any agitation in what I'm saying is because no one is taking the time to listen. Again, I realize no one has to listen, but I apologize if my patience runs low when all people can do is attack my character, rather than apply any knowledge they may have and possibly help me to understand this further. That was all I was asking for. I wasn't asking for people to take it apart and find the flaws, I was looking for advice into things I should do. Possibly something I was overlooking. After considering the evidence, getting an attorney is the first thing anyone thinks of in such a situation. Does that make sense to you?

 

[quincy]

I'm not trying to convince you, and I'm not even trying to argue with you. The only reason there is any agitation in what I'm saying is because no one is taking the time to listen. Again, I realize no one has to listen, but I apologize if my patience runs low when all people can do is attack my character, rather than apply any knowledge they may have and possibly help me to understand this further. That was all I was asking for. I wasn't asking for people to take it apart and find the flaws, I was looking for advice into things I should do. Possibly something I was overlooking. After considering the evidence, getting an attorney is the first thing anyone thinks of in such a situation. Does that make sense to you?

If you are looking for advice into things you should do, you have been given that advice.

Our patience runs low when you attack our character and our qualifications.

You are showing that you have a sense of entitlement that does not exist, either on this forum or in real life. Your rude posts are not going to get you what you want, so PAY to have someone listen to you by seeking assistance from an attorney in your area. Don't be surprised if a few attorneys decide money is not enough of an incentive to listen to you.

 

[kapeedmaro]

Well, I've been pretty direct about why I'm being less civil than normal, but everything I've said has been completely marginalized from the start. I want to know why everyone else is in such a rush to be uncivil. You act like all I've done is character assassination and that simply isn't the case. Other parts of this site may have helpful and intelligent people, but if this part of the site does, I've not seen it. I have not seen one ounce of compassion. You think I have a couple millions to fall back on, some parents who will gladly support their grown son? While it would be nice, I don't, and my fiance has been so ill for the past couple of years it has been almost impossible to pay the bills let alone get ahead. Now I know you don't care why I'm upset, or why I might need help. If I had money to shell out for an attorney, sir, I tell you I most certainly would be going to one to at least discuss this. I'm currently trying to reason with anyone I can at the facility to rectify this situation, but it is REALLY hard when you are misrepresentation, don't get to face your accuser and don't get to defend yourself before you get told your banned. Now go about your day, I've said my peace, you don't ever have to see me again, and you can smugly say to yourself it was because I was rude, but look through the comments, really try and understand what I was saying, and consider the stress I I might be under (which I mentioned from the beginning and ask yourself if my responses make sense.

 

[JusticiaVeritas]

Well what are the chances of that?! The first person to answer your thread is...

...an ex employee of Covance! How bout that?

The bottom line is, you are included in a study only as long as you're deemed fit. Study designs require both parties to agree before the protocol can be put in place (the testing facilities and the actual drug manufacturer). As long as that's done, the drug company really doesn't give a fart about how you're treated as long as it's not against the law.

Given your situation, my feeling is that you wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance of getting anything from them.

Were they unprofessional? Maybe
Was the subject a problem? Looks like it

You came across as an awkward, troublesome subject. That's really all there is to it.


Sorry.

First let me say, its not surprising that you used to work for Covance. You display the same general non-committal, unfeeling, attitude and the same blatantly ridiculous perspective that they are not obligated to be professional just because they can hide behind the excuse that subjects "are included in a study only as long as you're deemed fit" and then play God with these individual's livelihoods. Any perspective other than that these individuals should be fired and Covance should be held to a standard of professionalism, is absurd. Their right to choose who is 'deemed fit' is based on a criterion of eligibility on behavior of that individual and their health circumstances. It should not be based on the discretion of some obsessed staff member who decides to twist policy to the point where it is unrecognizable and lie to do so, in order to cover up blatant sexual harassment. If this were not a case of contract employment it would be cut and dried. There is indeed a good chance that they could win a case against Covance. They are not immune to prosecution. What this situation needs is a combination of consumer advocacy and media attention such as contacting the BBB, NBC's 8 On Your Side and finally the authority on the subject... the IRB. Covance is NOTORIOUS for its condescension toward subjects as evidenced by this post.

 

[quincy]

What is evident about this thread is that it is time to lock it.

kapeedmaro, once again, seek help from an attorney in your area if you think you have a case worth pursuing.

 

[JusticiaVeritas]

I say with conviction, do seek an attorney. There are some that would relish going after a large entity such as Covance. Don't let internet trolls who don't have the common decency or basic respect to even pay attention to the facts of the situation before commenting, deter you. Its obvious you are upset and rightfully so. Contact the Barr Association in your area for direction as to which attorney would be the best suited to represent you and would be willing to do so on contingency. Laying down and taking it is exactly how large companies like this get away with this kind of unethical behavior.

 

[cbg]

I have listened. But coming from 35+ years of direct experience in HR, including both conducting investigations and training others in how to conduct investigations in illegal discrimination and harassment, you have not convinced me that this is what has happened. You have provided no evidence to support your conclusion that the decision to ban you from participation was made by the person you think or for the reason you think.

If you want to provide any such evidence you may have, I'll look at it and see if it changes my mind. But with what you've posted? No, my friend, no.

 

[quincy]

... I want to know why everyone else is in such a rush to be uncivil. You act like all I've done is character assassination and that simply isn't the case. ... I've not seen it. I have not seen one ounce of compassion. ... I'm currently trying to reason with anyone I can at the facility to rectify this situation, but it is REALLY hard when you are misrepresentation, don't get to face your accuser and don't get to defend yourself before you get told your banned. Now go about your day, I've said my peace, you don't ever have to see me again, and you can smugly say to yourself it was because I was rude, but look through the comments, really try and understand what I was saying, and consider the stress I I might be under (which I mentioned from the beginning and ask yourself if my responses make sense.

I am sorry you feel that the members of this site were not "compassionate" enough. This is a legal site and you were provided with advice based on the law.

You responded to everything that was offered with a rudeness that was unwarranted. YOU were the one who was uncivil from the start.

You attacked the qualifications of those responding and now you are trying to excuse your bad behavior on this site by saying you are under "stress." Stress does not excuse rudeness. Nor does stress or the fact that there is illness in your family change the legal reality.

If you think that you can get "unbanned" based on some legal theory that we have been unable to see from what you have posted, then see if an attorney in your area (perhaps a free legal aid clinic) can find anything at all that supports your contention that you have a legal right to be unbanned.

Good luck.



edit to add: I don't know where you came from, JusticiaVeritas,," there does not appear to be anything "unethical" about the banning, and "Bar" has one "r" not two.

 

[JusticiaVeritas]

I am sorry you feel that the members of this site were not "compassionate" enough. This is a legal site and you were provided with advice based on the law.

You responded to everything that was offered with a rudeness that was unwarranted. YOU were the one who was uncivil from the start.

You attacked the qualifications of those responding and now you are trying to excuse your bad behavior on this site by saying you are under "stress." Stress does not excuse rudeness. Nor does stress or the fact that there is illness in your family change the legal reality.

If you think that you can get "unbanned" based on some legal theory that we have been unable to see from what you have posted, then see if an attorney in your area (perhaps a free legal aid clinic) can find anything at all that supports your contention that you have a legal right to be unbanned.

Good luck.

Coming from a place of unbias, it did not seem that individual was rude. It seemed he was attacked with the same attitude he received from the company itself by a former member. His comments seem justified when consideration is given to the manner to which his request for assistance was responded. It is suspect to say the least that this person is claiming to be a 'former' employee of a company known for this type of behavior. Given his obvious emotional state in the original post, the mention of a fiancee who has been ill, which it is evident by the manner in which it is stated that it is a long term illness, that the responses given here would be seen as a personal attack. No place in this thread other than my own did I see anything but dismissive judgmental responses seemingly given without a shred of humanity behind them. Perhaps next time before badgering someone who is clearly distressed by their situation it would 'help' (which is supposed to be the reason for this site n' pas?) it would do well to ask some detailed questions instead of troll and make accusations of rudeness when it was escalated to that by the responses received. Etiquette lesson terminated.

 

[Just Blue]

There are some of us who actually practice the law and are less concerned with proof reading other's posts to feel superior. Have a wonderful day.

Are you stating that you are an attorney? Have you been vetted by Admin?

 

[tranquility]

I realize that, and if you had read more carefully you would have realize that is not in any what what I was referring to. I'm talking about a situation in which I'm being discriminated against because I've tried to ignore the improper and personal efforts thrust upon me by woman/women at the place where I do studies. I really hope someone takes the time to try and actually understand what I'm saying instead of using this site as some sort of dumbed down law based version of sudoku to keep the cobwebs from becoming too entrenched in their dusty brains. I don't refer to you alone, but so far the combined brain power of every individual who has responded has been at best lackluster if not utterly unapplied. I'm getting off topic trying to figure out why people bother to respond to something they for whatever reason can't or simply don't have the energy to understand.

Save your quasi-intellectual insults for little girls you meet at the ice cream store--they may cry so at least you'll have that.

I understand you want them to choose you as a volunteer for a study so you can get money. They don't have to do that. They don't have to do that for any reason they choose. Unlike in employment issues or public accommodation issues where there are statutes and Constitutional rights involved, their choice is solely under their control and they can not choose you for reasons that might be illegal in those other contexts. Since you have no "right" to be chosen, the fact you are not chosen does not interfere with a property right or individualized harm so you would not have "standing" to do anything about it in court. Since there are no statutes to protect your chance to be picked as a volunteer, no government body will help you.

The litigation regarding medical studies have to do with informed consent (Or, consent at all) and abusive treatment for those who are chosen. (See: Tuskegee) While you are alleging discrimination for false reasons for not being chosen. EVEN IF WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE, you have no case. You do not have the particularized harm required to even get to argue your case.

 

[Just Blue]

Save your quasi-intellectual insults for little girls you meet at the ice cream store--they may cry so at least you'll have that.

I understand you want them to choose you as a volunteer for a study so you can get money. They don't have to do that. They don't have to do that for any reason they choose. Unlike in employment issues or public accommodation issues where there are statutes and Constitutional rights involved, their choice is solely under their control and they can not choose you for reasons that might be illegal in those other contexts. Since you have no "right" to be chosen, the fact you are not chosen does not interfere with a property right or individualized harm so you would not have "standing" to do anything about it in court. Since there are no statutes to protect your chance to be picked as a volunteer, no government body will help you.

The litigation regarding medical studies have to do with informed consent (Or, consent at all) and abusive treatment for those who are chosen. (See: Tuskegee) While you are alleging discrimination for false reasons for not being chosen. EVEN IF WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE, you have no case. You do not have the particularized harm required to even get to argue your case.

xtra like for this Tranq!!