26 Oct 2013

The Uniform Rift (part III - Enter Dragon Lawyer)

Reply to Corporate Edict issued by MIURA BULL CEO of SKRMR:

Office of Susan Derpantsoff Esquire

Dear Mr. Bull,
My esteemed client Lhorenzho has taken the liberty of forwarding to our office the memorandum/corporate edict recently issued by your management team.
It is apparently your corporations NEWLY adopted dress code.

This is but one more in a string of irksome scenarios created by your unpredictable management style Mr. Bull.
Might I recommend some evening business management classes at our local New Stanford university extension?

I must ask you at this point whether that dress code (attached) has previously been described in detail in any employee Handbook?

If so and if this is an amendment to that prior language, then any amendment by law has to be acknowledged by your employee base before it can be implemented.

Dress codes in general have to accomodate AND correlate to the type of work being performed Mr. Bull.
(I certainly see a potential problem on that point alone. More on that issue later.)

If this is NOT an amendment to a prior standard then you are required to ALSO first have written acknowledgement from your employees that they have received the latest iteration of your  proposals and explicitly acquiesce to its terms and conditions.

If they are not employees and are considered "independent contractors" then your attempt to mandate restrictions as to attire will be even more problematic.
Speak to your own counsel for details and specifics regarding the legal permutations that position creates.

Although not explicitly stated, there is an inference in your edict that failure to comply with its proposals could result in disciplinary action and/or termination.

Is my clients position with the Screaming Hayabusas in jeopardy Mr. Bull?
That is a seminal question in any dispute of this type.

If not and you are instead relying on "peer pressure" from his fellow capsuleers to channel his fashion sense then you may be in danger of both encouraging and committing workplace bullying.
Bullying can emanate from an employers unreasonable insistence that an employee conform to specious and arbitrary standards!
That certainly appears to be the case here.

Lhorenzho should be afforded the opportunity to explain why he should be exempt from your rigid policies on attire.

We will do so at a later date under separate cover.

Be aware Mr. Bull that you are dangerously close to committing an outright discriminatory act if you persist on pushing my client into compliance.

He has stated to me in the past that you have mocked his desire to wear traditional Mexican garb such as sarapes and sombreros and that his request to wear a ZOOT suit at a recent formal affair was summarily denied!

Outrageous Mr. Bull and once again most likely discriminatory.

Also, as a followup to my comments earlier with respect to workplace employer sanctioned bullying, you are encouraged to enlighten yourself on some simple parameters as to what might constitute bullying behavior in the workplace.

This correspondence will touch on issues peripheral to the disputed dress code edict and also provide a framework for your edification and consideration as you contemplate future personnel actions regarding employee attire in your corporation.

One of the issues and a primary concern as I stated above is possible bullying.

In addition, your general corporate culture and milieu is also of concern, thus the broader nature of this communication with you.
This is not just about shirts and pants Mr. Bull.

But I digress.

In the TYPOLOGY of Bullying one of the sub categories is known as "DESTABILISATION".
This is defined as the tendency by an employer to assign meaningless tasks to a trusted servant.

Did you not ask my client recently to "fit thousands of ships" in preparation for another one of your numerous whimsical events?
Talk about a meaningless task.
My client is not a grease monkey.
Assign that work to one of your other flunkies!

It (destabilisation) also includes the tendency to constantly remind someone of their blunders, and setting an individual up for failure.
How often have I heard my poor client express frustration and anger at your constant chirping and harangues regarding his failures!

I have no doubt that ANY shortcomings attributed to my client can be directly traced to your actions sir.

Over time, your actions and omissions have threatened both his personal and professional standing and have worked to Isolate him from his corpmates and have exhausted him both physically and mentally.
Your zeal for creating an endless string of makework activities such as spurious CTA's and strictly enforced, highly questionable ship fitting standards that all but ensure he will lose his ships have caused him to suffer significant mental anguish in recent months. This has to stop Mr. Bull.

His recent 318 jump sojourn into dreaded NULL SEC was but another instance of your incessant bullying.

This trip was made ONLY because you insisted that he make the journey.

We will be requesting a written explanation as to why this was done.

You also ordered him to keep a "JOURNAL" of his travels, presumably so that you could plagiarize his material for inclusion into your less than successful travel agent venture.

Incidentally, in the very near future, you will personally be recieving an itemized billing for the cost of replacing his beloved LOKI ship.
All other costs associated with that ill fated trip will be collated and presented to you for reimbursement.

If I may be permitted to editorialize before closing I would like to add the following.

I must say I had heretofore looked upon you (at least based on reputation as we have never met) as more of a crude, gruff, unwashed and perpetually unkempt ruffian based upon the history provided by both my dear client Lhorenzho (he has never lied to me!) and the numerous sordid public stories that are constantly circulating in the press related to your activities.

That you consider yourself a couturier of sorts was indeed a surprise.

Is it possible Mr. Bull, that in your infinite arrogance, you dare cast yourself in the same category as legendary fashionistas such as Pucci, Rabanne, Halston, Armani, Cerruti, Vuitton and Klein!

I must say the gall of it astounds me.

Stick to your RIFTERS mister!

Your recommendations for space wear had me positively confounded and as a successful, fashion conscious, professional woman I was livid when I reviewed the material provided to me by my field investigator.
It is not surprising that your forum post did not include specific photos of the womens uniform.
My contacts in your corporation have discretely sent me a portfolio of your proposals.

Not since watching the movie "BARBARELLA" have I seen such tawdry looking "space" wear for the ladies.

Peek-a-boo transparencies and Lolita touches such as Knee-socks and chin strapped hats hardly constitute utilitarian space combat wear.
I am surprised stripper tassels were not also required!

Where are the functional multiple pockets and velcro?
The female pilots (both past, current, and future members) in your corporation are being seriously harassed sexually and lasciviously objectified!

You are being put on notice sir.

The EEOC and Labor relations boards have all been notified and actions are pending.
LULAC (League of united latin american citizens) and LA RAZA have also been contacted for investigation as to possible civil rights violations by you and your corporate management team.

In addition, we are at this time demanding information regarding the SKRMR workers compensation carrier as I intend to file through my qualified associate a workers compensation claim.
Please provide Lhorenzho an employee claim form immediately! I am afraid we must insist on a Caldari venue for any hearings on this work comp matter.

You are also advised that our office will be working closely with noted Chicano Attorney Pagaras Mucho, who has taken a keen interest in this case.

He is a highly successful attorney whose legal practice is now limited to cases of significant social value and impact.

Points that require reiteration:
You will stop ALL efforts to mandate uniform choice to my client Lhorenzho.
You will cease all efforts to humiliate him in front of his peers.
You will PAY ALL costs associated with his recent loss of LOKI cruiser.
The company WILL pay for the purchase and periodic cleaning of his "CHICANO ZOOT SUIT!" (5 suits minimum purchase)
You will provide him 25 pairs of STACEY ADAMS shoes per year. (He will NOT wear boots!)
He will not submit to uniform spot checks nor will he be amenable to recieving "advice" from Miura Bull or his agents as to dress code.
He will NOT submit to having his eyewear approved by your corporate optician.
He will NOT submit to company physical examination of ANY kind and therefore it follows that his TATTOO's will NOT be disclosed and/or reported.
You or your agent WILL provide to our office ALL personnel records (in all mediums) pertaining to my client Mr. Lhorenzho. (Return postage to be paid by SKRMR)
My client will not be required to participate in ANY CTA regardless of genre or cause. (Lhorenzho is loyal and patriotic by nature and does not need prompting to embrace a just cause for action!)
The Screaming Hayabusas (SKRMR) will provide a *350 million yearly stipend for maintenance of his non-combat gear. (to be defined later)
The MIURA BULL ADVANCED FASHION KOUNCIL (MBAFK) is not recognized or acknowledged and is NOT to spam advertisements to Lhorenzho's personal Emails.
Under NO circumstances are the MBAKF personal shoppers to approach or contact my client. (They will be deemed trespassers and will be dealt with severely)
Any SEMI-Autonomous Guard Units found near my client will be destroyed and remnants sold for scrap metal.


Susan Derpantsoff - Attorney-at-Law

*to be adjusted yearly based on cost of living index

cc- Mr. Pagaras Mucho - Licenciado (abogado)


To be continued?


1 comment:

  1. Really? A private communication to you involving a personnel matter has been put on a public blog for all to see? You are certainly making it easy for us. See you in court.
    Susan D.