American Hero v. British Company who's the dick?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**AustonT**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/11/29/dakota-meyer-medal-of-honor-bae-systems_n_1119253.html

Dakota Meyer, Medal Of Honor Recipient, Sues BAE Systems
AP | Nov 29, 2011 3:41 PM EST

Comments (16)

SAN ANTONIO -- A U.S. Marine given the nation's highest award for valor is suing a defense contractor that he says ridiculed his Medal of Honor, called him mentally unstable and suggested he had a drinking problem, thereby costing him a job.
Dakota Meyer received the Medal of Honor in September, two years after the young corporal saved 36 lives during a six-hour ambush in Afghanistan. He the third living recipient of the award for actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. After the medal was approved, President Barack Obama waited to call until Meyer's lunch break because the 23-year-old worried about taking a call on the job.
In a defamation lawsuit filed in Texas, Meyer alleges that his former employer, BAE Systems OASYS Inc., ruined his chances at landing a new job by telling a prospective employer that he was a poor worker during a three-month stint earlier this year.
A BAE Systems manager said Meyer "was mentally unstable, that Sgt. Meyer was not performing BAE tasks assigned and that Sgt. Meyer had a problem related to drinking in a social setting," according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, seeks unspecified damages.
BAE Systems spokesman Brian Roehrkasse told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the company was grateful to Meyer for his bravery but strongly disagreed with his claims. He called Meyer's actions in Afghanistan "heroic" and wished him success.
Attorneys for Meyer did not return a phone message Tuesday.
Meyer was working construction in his home state of Kentucky when he was awarded the Medal of Honor. In September 2009, Meyer was just 21 when, defying orders from his commanders, he charged five times in a Humvee into heavy gunfire and provided cover for his team, allowing many to escape likely death. He killed at least eight Taliban insurgents.
According to the lawsuit filed Monday, BAE hired Meyer in March but the relationship quickly soured. Meyer said he became dismayed in April upon learning that BAE had pursued sales of weapons systems to Pakistan, and sent an email to his supervisor expressing his disapproval.
Meyer wrote that it was "disturbing" how U.S. troops were being issued outdated equipment when better, advanced thermal optic scopes were being offered to Pakistan.
"We are simply taking the best gear, the best technology on the market to date and giving to guys that are known to stab us in the back," Meyer wrote in the email, according to the lawsuit.
Roehrkasse, the BAE spokesman, said it is the State Department and not BAE that makes the decision on which defense-related products can be exported.
"In recent years, the U.S. government has approved the export of defense-related goods from numerous defense companies to Pakistan as part of the United States' bilateral relationship with that country," Roehrkasse said.
Meyer claims his supervisor began berating and belittling him after sending the email, at one point allegedly taunting him about his Medal of Honor by calling it Meyer's "pending star status." That supervisor, Bobby McCreight, is also named in the lawsuit and is still employed by BAE. Roehrkasse said McCreight is a former decorated Marine sniper.
Meyer resigned from BAE in May. He then tried obtaining a job at a former employer, San Diego-based Ausgar Technologies, but the lawsuit claims the opportunity fell through after McCreight characterized Meyer as a poor employee during a conversation with a manager who had to approve new hires.
"Bottom line, it was determined that ... you were not recommended to be placed back on the team due to being mentally unstable and no performing on OASYS tasks assigned," according to an email from an Ausgar manager included in the lawsuit.

Somebody is wrong here...don't know who.

**Ouze**

Can't say. We don't have all the information. If all the internal emails are made public, then perhaps we can say. For all we know this company had dozens of documented complaints about him being a wacko.

But I hope things work out for him, either way.

**Jihadin**

Its a defamation on him.

"was mentally unstable, that Sgt. Meyer was not performing BAE tasks assigned and that Sgt. Meyer had a problem related to drinking in a social setting," according to the lawsuit.

If they left it as "Not performing BAE tasks" and instead of shotgunning him with the "problem related to drinking in a social setting" could have gone with "personnal outside influence was effecting his performance at work. They would have been alright.

What they went with is a personnal attack on his character/integerty.

**Rented Tritium**

If they really said "mentally unstable" then they have a big problem. Employers don't get to toss around unqualified medical opinions like that.

**daedalus**

Yeah, you just CAN'T say things like that about a former employee.

Not legal, and not cool.

**mattyrm**

To be fair you can win the medal of honour and be a douchebag. A good mate of mine won the Military Cross (Matt Croucher) and Ive known several lads get gongs for their actions, and they could have gone to other people just as deserving.

It seems more luck than judgement you get a medal these days. And look at Johnson Beharry, what did he do to earn a VC?

The fact a bloke has a MoH means little to me, he could still have questionable moral character lets be honest here. Soldiers get gongs for being good soldiers, not good blokes.

Regards the rest of it, well, I dont know how the law works, but it does seem silly to mention his drink problem, couldnt they just fire him and be done with it?

And on another level, what about if during the trial (he is going to sue them) they prove that he was indeed bad at his job and he does indeed have a drink problem?

**AustonT**

mattyrm wrote:The fact a bloke has a MoH means little to me, he could still have questionable moral character lets be honest here. Soldiers get gongs for being good soldiers, not good blokes.

A thousand times this. The CMH MEANS a great deal to me, the guy's a hero who did something I probably couldn't. It doesn't make him a saint. I just really want to see how it shakes out.

**Frazzled**

mattyrm wrote: To be fair you can win the medal of honour and be a douchebag. A good mate of mine won the Military Cross (Matt Croucher) and Ive known several lads get gongs for their actions, and they could have gone to other people just as deserving.

It seems more luck than judgement you get a medal these days. And look at Johnson Beharry, what did he do to earn a VC?

The fact a bloke has a MoH means little to me, he could still have questionable moral character lets be honest here. Soldiers get gongs for being good soldiers, not good blokes.

Regards the rest of it, well, I dont know how the law works, but it does seem silly to mention his drink problem, couldnt they just fire him and be done with it?

And on another level, what about if during the trial (he is going to sue them) they prove that he was indeed bad at his job and he does indeed have a drink problem?

Doesn't matter really. Any references about an employee can only be based on their work performance, at work or a work related activity.

**daedalus**

I agree with you guys completely, but that still doesn't change the fact that you can be the biggest jackass on earth at your last job, and they can't say you were "mentally unstable", if it was indeed stated.

**Steu**

Frazzled wrote:
mattyrm wrote: To be fair you can win the medal of honour and be a douchebag. A good mate of mine won the Military Cross (Matt Croucher) and Ive known several lads get gongs for their actions, and they could have gone to other people just as deserving.

It seems more luck than judgement you get a medal these days. And look at Johnson Beharry, what did he do to earn a VC?

The fact a bloke has a MoH means little to me, he could still have questionable moral character lets be honest here. Soldiers get gongs for being good soldiers, not good blokes.

Regards the rest of it, well, I dont know how the law works, but it does seem silly to mention his drink problem, couldnt they just fire him and be done with it?

And on another level, what about if during the trial (he is going to sue them) they prove that he was indeed bad at his job and he does indeed have a drink problem?

Doesn't matter really. Any references about an employee can only be based on their work performance, at work or a work related activity.

I agree the way it works is if he was a bad employee they refuse to give a refrence which starts to ring bells at the new company. You should never bad mouth someone to another company.

**Jihadin**

Mattrym

Its not about his work ethics that on the job. Its the personnel attack on his character...

Hard to explain
Would come up with a military example but damn...we're a bit screwed up on and off duty

If a civilian (no idea what the military is) calls you in reference for a mate of your that left service. Would you stick with his exemplery job performance while he was on duty?

**Frazzled**

Steu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
mattyrm wrote: To be fair you can win the medal of honour and be a douchebag. A good mate of mine won the Military Cross (Matt Croucher) and Ive known several lads get gongs for their actions, and they could have gone to other people just as deserving.

It seems more luck than judgement you get a medal these days. And look at Johnson Beharry, what did he do to earn a VC?

The fact a bloke has a MoH means little to me, he could still have questionable moral character lets be honest here. Soldiers get gongs for being good soldiers, not good blokes.

Regards the rest of it, well, I dont know how the law works, but it does seem silly to mention his drink problem, couldnt they just fire him and be done with it?

And on another level, what about if during the trial (he is going to sue them) they prove that he was indeed bad at his job and he does indeed have a drink problem?

Doesn't matter really. Any references about an employee can only be based on their work performance, at work or a work related activity.

In fact, many companies won't give a reference at all, other than the employee worked from such to such period of time.
I agree the way it works is if he was a bad employee they refuse to give a refrence which starts to ring bells at the new company. You should never bad mouth someone to another company.

**Kilkrazy**

At the company where I work the limit of a reference is a letter confirming the dates during which you worked at the company.

However this isn't about references, it is about defamation.

**mattyrm**

daedalus wrote:I agree with you guys completely, but that still doesn't change the fact that you can be the biggest jackass on earth at your last job, and they can't say you were "mentally unstable", if it was indeed stated.

Thing is though, it says the guy emailed the other prospective employer and said "Dont employ him because X"

I'm sorry, but the employment laws are fethed up! I know it is hard to sack people these days, but Jesus. If a guy works for me and he is totally fething usless, is rude, drinks too much and never shows up for work on time, why am I NOT allowed to tell people?!

Isnt it your moral responsibility to basically say to anyone else asking about him "Dont hire that guy, he's a total feth head!"

**Jihadin**

You know...you can be sued for glossing a former employee who doesn't perform as expected at a new job. Ones best bet is just confirmed the time spent that he/she worked there

**mattyrm**

Jihadin wrote:You know...you can be sued for glossing a former employee who doesn't perform as expected at a new job. Ones best bet is just confirmed the time spent that he/she worked there

Yeah well, my missus just explained the basic employment laws to me..

They need changing! If I own a restaurant and I fire a guy because he had a habit of sprinkling his pubes into the food due to some bizarre sexual fetish, and then a fortnight later I get a phone call off Wendy's, why the feth cant I scream from the rooftops "He jacks off in the soup!"

What am I supposed to say? "We found him simply to be unsuitable?"

No wonder there are so many idiots working ... well.. everywhere!

**Easy E**

mattyrm wrote:
daedalus wrote:I agree with you guys completely, but that still doesn't change the fact that you can be the biggest jackass on earth at your last job, and they can't say you were "mentally unstable", if it was indeed stated.

Thing is though, it says the guy emailed the other prospective employer and said "Dont employ him because X"

I'm sorry, but the employment laws are fethed up! I know it is hard to sack people these days, but Jesus. If a guy works for me and he is totally fething usless, is rude, drinks too much and never shows up for work on time, why am I NOT allowed to tell people?!

Isnt it your moral responsibility to basically say to anyone else asking about him "Dont hire that guy, he's a total feth head!"

You don't put it in writing.

Every good businessman knows that. You need plausible deniability.

You tell them; "he was employed between this date and this date. At this time he is not eligible for re-hire per our policies."

**Jihadin**

Mattrym

All the our time in uniform we come up with unique ways to get our point across

Jack off in the soup....pluuuusseeeee

it'll be

"Well Sir/Ma'am I maintain a standard hygiene rule in place....."

**AustonT**

Jihadin wrote:Would come up with a military example but damn...we're a bit screwed up on and off duty

I can provide.
I'm a PSG and I notice SSG Numbletard has a hard on for PFC Asshat. Constantly berating him and counseling him everyday.
I move PFC Asshat to SSG Jollygood's squad. Instead of simply transferring PFC A's counseling to his new supervisor SSG Numbletard shreds that gak and personally tells Jollygood that his new soldier is a total feth up. He can't find his ass with both hands a map and a self correcting course, he puts his bolt carrier in backwards, and takes exhaust samples of five tons with his mouth...
That seems equitable.

**Jihadin**

Actually seen someone try to put a bolt carrier in backwards.....which is about as bad as the same person loading his rounds in backwards in the magazine

**AustonT**

The problem isn't if they ATTEMPT to put it in backwards...it's if they succeed. Then I have a red tagged weapon on my bench next to "closed in Bradley ramp" except one is negligence and one is epic stupidity.

**Jihadin**

You didn't get a M4 that was run over by a RTCH did you? Afghanistan

**AustonT**

No, I only worked in depot on loan (it are not my job) and then only at Stewart DOL.
I DID have the dubious pleasure of driving up to Stewart from Hunter to assist a sister BN who were qualifying on their BRAND NEW M2s. When I showed up one was jammed on a ring mount on top of an LMTV. in the intervening hours I fell of the truck...my fault should have dismounted it. And discovered
1. These donkey-caves had only used WD 40 to lubricate
2. The bolt swelled and bent the receiver
3. 2 of the 8 brand new barrels were thread stripped already.
4. that this BN was composed solely of idiots
5. Of four factory new guns I deadlined 3 and told them not to use the 4th until I got back. called my Top and let him deal with them.
6. Forgot tuis should be 2. That hadn't even looked at the TM or any other COEI they received...you know like the can of typewriter oil they were supposed to be using.

I can't imagine having to depend on those guys...

**Jihadin**

See the red sheet on the one guy that used a 50 cal round to beat in a locking pin on the turret mount for the M2 year and half back?

**daedalus**

mattyrm wrote: Thing is though, it says the guy emailed the other prospective employer and said "Dont employ him because X"

I'm sorry, but the employment laws are fethed up! I know it is hard to sack people these days, but Jesus. If a guy works for me and he is totally fething usless, is rude, drinks too much and never shows up for work on time, why am I NOT allowed to tell people?!

Isnt it your moral responsibility to basically say to anyone else asking about him "Dont hire that guy, he's a total feth head!"

I think "...and is not elligible for rehire per our policies" (which I assume is legit, but I'm not in HR/legal so I can't say 100%) says more than enough. As far as moral responsibility goes, it depends. Was he drinking on the job? Unless he's coming into work slushed or too hungover to work, it shouldn't matter what he does on his off hours in a "social setting". We don't know if he's useless, rude, or doesn't show up on time. We do know he's been accused of being "mentally unstable", "not performing BAE tasks assigned", and that he "had a problem related to drinking in a social setting".

Only one of those things has any relevance to job performance, at least, without knowing what the "social setting" was or if the new job mandates a psych evaluation.

**AustonT**

Jihadin wrote:See the red sheet on the one guy that used a 50 cal round to beat in a locking pin on the turret mount for the M2 year and half back?

Yes.
The one that freaked me out was in...08? The armorer attempting to safe an AT4 in the arms room that crispy frittered himself...chilled me. Had just finished running an AT4 range with training and live systems the week before.

**daedalus**

Makes me think of the story I heard a good time ago about the guy who replaced some automobile fuses with .22 rounds. Not a shining moment for humanity.

**Jihadin**

Thats bad really really bad. We had two pilots at Ft Campbell come off the 9mil range and while outside the arms room one mange to shoot the other in the ass

**ArbeitsSchu**

Has it been established whether he actually IS the things his old boss says he is? He did get the MoH after disobeying orders, which rather implies that he may not always do what his boss asks him to do.

**AustonT**

Jihadin wrote:Thats bad really really bad. We had two pilots at Ft Campbell come off the 9mil range and while outside the arms room one mange to shoot the other in the ass

How?