I have two questions for you– if you are an employment attorney, paralegal or other actor routinely involved in employment-law systems (agency investigator, judge, etc., to the extent you are willing and allowed to respond)– about how to improve value in legal representation.

The two questions for you (please respond to both) are these:

(1) What can Plaintiff’s employment attorneys do to provide their clients with better value?

(2) What can Defendant’s employment attorneys do to provide their clients with better value?

You can leave your answer by clicking the Leave A Comment link below, or by emailing me at mbrown@pbclaw.com.

For more information about the questions and feedback I seek, please Read More.

Please note these questions ask about improvement in legal representation.  They do not assume, or ask you to assume, that low value is the norm or endemic.  Like all professions and jobs, there are a lot of attorneys doing a lot right, more than not.  But like everyone, there must be areas we attorneys should contemplate for improvement.

For example, even in many existing attorney-client relationships where there have thus far been no complaints by clients about value, the rapid evolution of technology (e.g. new case-management software, extranet services, etc.) may pressure that changes be made to improve efficiency and value.

One growing sentiment is that more attorneys should jump on the techie-train, and utilize electronic case- and document-management software. That this would increase productivity, reduce overhead, improve communications with clients, and ultimately would better-serve clients at a lower cost.

A related sentiment, gaining steam, is that more attorneys should abandon hourly-billing models, and move to “alternative” fee arrangements, such as flat fees.  If a law firm combined flat-fee billing with increased technological efficiencies, some theories hold, more value at a lower cost can be provided to the client, and more fees can be earned by the law firm, than under traditional hourly-fee arrangements.

These sort of technological, fee-system, and practice-management issues are frequently discussed (and very well at that) at attorney blogs like the Greatest American Lawyer, the [non] billable hour, My Shingle, Ross Ipsa Loquitur, Compujurist, and other resources.

The two  questions above could be answered with technical/software-based answers, but they could also be answered in many other ways.  I encourage all responses.  I just ask you keep in mind the core issue of client value, and the employment law context.

For example, maybe there’s an employment defense attorney out there (or 10,000) who think that plaintiff’s attorneys should provide more value by talking to plaintiffs more at the onset about damages limitations; that employee-plaintiffs with low damages should be discouraged from litigation.  Perhaps a plaintiff’s attorney out there agrees that low damages could lead to low client value, but thinks that plaintiff’s attorneys can provide better value to low-damages plaintiffs by referring them to low-cost or free legal resources.

Perhaps many employment attorneys on both sides of the fence are thinking that more employers and employees alike should be encouraged to mediate their cases early.

The examples/issues above are just the tip of the iceberg, I suspect, in how folks could answer the two questions above.

I suspect many answers to the two questions will be broad and basic.  Answers may involve fundamental issues like improving means of attorney-client communication, trust, disclosures upfront about expected fees and costs, problem-solving, etc.

In any event, to the employment law attorneys and legal actors out there, I would very, very much appreciate your answers to the two questions above.

You can leave a comment below, or email me at mbrown@pbclaw.com.  Thank you.

For the employment attorneys out there– this is a great blog with up-to-date employment law case summaries from all Circuits.

The blog is authored by Paul Mollica of the Chicago employment law firm Meites, Mulder, Mollica & Glink.  Paul is a great colleague for whom the term “lawyer’s lawyer” does not go far enough.

 

Image by Mankamundo [Back to the Grind

Say you’re a corporate employee.  You came down with a nasty virus.  Your sister and her kids passed it on to you; they later apologize for having visited when they were sick.  You get a 102 degree fever, fatigue. Doctor says you’ll wind up in bed for a week, gives you a doctor’s note.  You hadn’t missed a day of work in years before this.  So you call in sick to work, only to hear the HR rep be snide with you, question whether you’re really sick, and badger you before finally granting you the time off.  This upsets you.  So you can’t help but give her your two cents about her and the company before hanging up.

Say you’re an HR employee.  An hourly worker calls in with a “virus.”  Just happens to be a Friday.  Also happens to be the same worker Manager Jones reported as ”insubordinate” a few weeks ago, in relation to a customer complaint.  This worker has found a doctor willing to give him a note for a full week off for a flu virus.  What kind of virus lasts a full week– doesn’t the typical flu last 72 hours at most??  Worst case, his flu should be over, and he should be back to work, early next week as opposed to Friday.  That department is already short workers.  Now, you’ve got to find someone to cover, on short notice.  But you’ll have to do it.  God forbid HR question the medical necessity of this 1-week flu vacation; if so, you’d have to answer to some lawyer the employee hires, and after that have corporate chew you out.

What stinks about this scenario (besides all of it)?

First, lack of perspective.  Neither side really knows the other, or tries to.

Second, negative assumptions.  Each side makes bad assumptions about the other, without giving the other any benefit of the doubt.  Not the slightest bit of time or brainstorming takes place to think of legitimate reasoning or practical pressures that could exist for the other party and perhaps explain their behavior.  Maybe there’s an alternate, good explanation to the bad one.

What if this worker really IS sick?  His prior work problems are concerning, but none concern attendance, and his performance review had his performance overall rated as acceptable…

What if HR is left short-handed by my absence?  What if the HR rep fears her own job security– this company is laying off people left and right.  I know my work area is already stretched thin– HR has got to consider those issues first, before considering what difficulties I personally have.

I frequently hear of jobs that end in situations like the illness scenario above.

And the Axman (or Axwoman) that ends the job is (1) the sick employee; (2) the HR/management rep; or (3) both.

And what is the FORCE that usually compels the Ax to swing?  Surprisingly, the main force is usually not the underlying matter (here the illness, requested time off, and HR’s wish to have the worker work).  Rather, the parties’ assumptions and communication is usually what unleashes the death blow.

If you’re the ill employee in the situation above, you are the first Axman.  You can chop down your own job in one swift blow by choosing to communicate or react negatively to HR.  Especially if you’re right.  If HR’s reaction is illogical, they are not going to see the light by you berating them or beating them over the head with logic.

The second Axman is the HR rep.  You’re confronted with this worker, making these demands that hurt the company.  Plus, this worker has the nerve to be snide with you about a situation the worker mistakenly sees as an entitlement.  It would feel so good to teach this person just how unentitled he is– to fire him on the spot as he berates you– and see if he can withstand a dogfight with the corporation’s lawyers for a few years.  The corporation could challenge his unemployment based on misconduct and insubordination.  That would teach him a thing or two.

That would also teach his kids, who depend on his income, a thing or two.

The two Axmen’s decisions are very weighty ones.  Often, the decisions are made too quickly, in an emotional state, without enough time or thought put into them.  Too few Axmen give full consideration to the big picture, and all the financial and moral consequences that could result from wrong assumptions and negative communication.

George William Curtis once said “Anger is an expensive luxury in which only men of certain income can indulge.”  In this day and age, I don’t think anyone can be sure they can afford anger.

This blog often says an employee in a dispute with an employer should pay more attention to bottom-line financial considerations (e.g. how much money an employment lawsuit could cost you vs. how much you could win) than to the “principle” of the matter (e.g. how wrong the employer’s action was).

Many folks disagree with this blog’s de-emphasis of “principle.”  And there are some very abusive bad employment situations out there one can point to as examples of “principle” being important, even when financial loss was not a factor.  I have heard from workers whose bosses subjected them to physical assault, to screaming, and to comments and acts that were so insulting they leave me scratching my head as to which direction this world is heading.

Hostile workplace situations– which often do not involve financial loss, or violate the law– are nonetheless harmful and should be addressed.

So, I must note the principle of the matter DOES matter. If your employer is harassing you, that is wrong, and that matters, regardless whether an attorney tells you that you have a good legal claim or not.

The concern this blog has with “principle” is mainly an issue of FORUM: if you address your issue via a civil lawsuit (say, a discrimination claim) this is often not the best forum in which to pursue a principle.  If the “principle” matter is accompanied by an economic loss– for example, if someone is sexually harassed, fired for complaining of sexual harassment, and loses six months of income– then the civil justice system is an appropriate place to try to recover lost money along with the principle.  But the civil system does not make an employer change its heart or apologize, and often winning parties do not even feel a sense of vindication, they just have a financial gain.

A principle– such as correcting an employer’s misconduct, ensuring other employees are not harassed or fired for wrong reasons in the future, etc.– is often better addressed by non-litigation means than by litigation.

A person looking to correct an employer’s conduct can (1) pursue informal, non-costly means to address a problem, like a heart-to-heart discussionwith a representative of the employer (hey, sometimes to your surprise there is a person of influence who will listen to you, you both have open minds, and communication works!); (2) contact your legislator and/or pursue legislation to address the problem/issue of “principle” (for example, Wisconsin could benefit from anti-bullying legislation like some other states have, which prohibit abusive conduct by employers); (3) take your labor and your talents to a better work environment, knowing there are better days ahead.

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

Are you an employee in an employment dispute, and considering whether to “drop the L-bomb,” and tell your employer you’re retaining an attorney?

Occasionally, an employee/prospective client who consults with me will tell me that he already dropped the L-bomb, and already told his employer he would be retaining a lawyer.

Often, this news was told to the employer in a huff, e.g. “If you insist on denying my medical leave, Ms. Manager, well then you’ll be hearing from my lawyer!”  Every once in awhile, an employee who I’ve never even met or communicated with will send an email to the manager he or she’s having a dispute with, and will copy my email address (found on the internet) on the email to the manager.  Thus this gives the impression I have been retained to represent someone I’d never been in contact with.  (For anyone considering using a lawyer/email address to do this, please DON’T– it’s not a good idea for many reasons).

Making L-bomb threats may feel good when one is frustrated.  However, what feels good to say or do “in the moment” of an angry employment dispute can often result in bad, long-term consequences.

In most situations, it will NOT help an employee to drop the L-bomb, and tell your employer that you’re retaining a lawyer.

In many situations, the employee’s mere mention of the L-word makes the employer even more upset, makes the employer take more adverse actions, and makes the situation worse.  Most employers are not intimidated by L-threats, because often the threats aren’t carried out.  It may be the employer’s experience that they’ve heard many L-bombs dropped, but usually a lawyer was not hired, there was no lawsuit, etc.  Or perhaps your employer anticipates you will likely get a lawyer, but the employer has planned for the worst-case L-scenarios and risks, and the employer isn’t worried about your particular legal issues.  And sometimes, an employee’s L-bomb threat appears to work, and the employer seems to back off, but only later the employee learns the L-threat just made the employer take more carefully-planned actions, without giving the employee (and her attorney) advance warnings anymore.

In sum, the L-bomb usually turns out to be less intimidating to the employer, and less effective in improving the employee’s situation, than the employee expects.

With all that said, there are certain occasions where the news of hiring a lawyer, when well-delivered, CAN make an abrupt and positive impact on an employee’s matter.  And if you’re hiring an attorney long-term, such as for litigation work, the employer must and will be told you have a lawyer at some point, in fairness to the employer.  But before you rush to deliver that news yourself, especially if you’re in a huff, you should stop to reflect.  Since you’re getting a lawyer involved, then it only makes sense you talk to that lawyer about your plans (including any planned announcement you’ve retained a lawyer) before you put those plans in action.

It’s best that the lawyer and employee/client discuss and plan in advance the announcement that the lawyer was hired.  Then that news can be delivered to the employer under carefully-considered timing and circumstances.

DISCLAIMER: The information in this blog is not legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship between you and Employee Rights Attorney Michael Brown or the law firm of Peterson, Berk & Cross. Legal advice often varies between situations. If you want legal advice for your specific circumstances, you must consult with an attorney (and an employment attorney for employment matters).

For more information about Wisconsin employment attorney Michael F. Brown and Peterson, Berk & Cross, S.C., please visit here.

Technorati Profile

“It is easy to fool yourself.  It is possible to fool the people you work for.  It is more difficult to fool the people you work with.  But it is almost impossible to fool the people who work under you.” — Harry B. Thayer

Commonly, I get calls  from workers who are interested in a defamation action, based on false statements an employer made.  Defamation is a State-law claim, and I have represented persons for defamation claims under Wisconsin law.

If you are contemplating a defamation action against an employer, consider the things below.  (Please note this post does not provide legal advice; if you want legal advice, you must consult about your specific situation with an attorney who is licensed in the State in which the allegedly defamatory statements were made).

• Are you within the legal deadline period (and if in Wisconsin, did the employer make the false statement within the last 2 years)?

Wisconsin has a two-year statute of limitations (deadline period) for a defamation claim.  If you are in another State, that State may have a different statute of limitations period for defamation.

You should talk to an attorney about when the employer’s statements were made, to make sure you have time under applicable statutes of limitations to pursue defamation claims or any other legal claims that may apply.

• Did the employer make a demonstrably false statement?

In order to pursue a defamation action against an employer, you must show the employer made a false statement.

If an employer says you embezzled $100,000 and you didn’t, then that type of accusation is tangible and something that could realistically be investigated and proved false.  However, if the employer said something more subjective (e.g. that you are a “poor worker”), then that sort of intangible comment (e.g. “poor”) is harder to address and prove false.

So, if you are interested in a potential defamation action, the first question you should ask yourself is whether the type of employer statement at issue is subjective, or is objectively quantifiable as true or false.

• Can you prove the employer made the false statement?

Do you have proof — a document, recording, written statement from a witness who heard the statement, etc.– that proves the employer actually made the false statement?  If you are banking on assumptions alone (e.g. “my employer MUST be making false statements about me to other employers, because that’s the kind of people they are, and when I  apply to other employers no one offers me work”), that will probably not be enough to win a defamation claim.

If you do not have proof of a false statement, it is often the case that the employer will deny making the statement or will say they can’t remember.  If you intend on pursuing litigation for a defamation matter, you should have proof in-hand.

• Has the false statement mattered- has it cost you a specific opportunity or wages you can identify?

Can you prove you lost a specific opportunity and/or monies, e.g. you lost a new job because of your old employer’s false statements?  If you lost tangible opportunities and monies due to a false statement, then it becomes more feasible to consider a legal action.

• What was the context in which the statement was made– was it while you were a current or former employee? While you were in a legal proceeding?

If an employer makes a false statement in certain contexts– for example, if the false statement is made during legal proceedings (e.g. during a deposition), or in a public forum– then there are certain legal immunities that may apply and make a defamation action difficult even if you can prove a false statement was made.

As another example, if an employer makes a false statement about a current employee as opposed to a former employee, then a defamation claim could be preempted (blocked) by workers compensation law, depending on the situation.

In short, the context of the statement matters.  Talk to an employee rights attorney licensed in your State about the specific circumstances under which the false statement was made.  (You can search for such an employee rights attorney, by-State, at this website).

DISCLAIMER: The information in this blog is not legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship between you and Employee Rights Attorney Michael Brown or the law firm of Peterson, Berk & Cross. Legal advice often varies between situations. If you want legal advice for your specific circumstances, you must consult with an attorney (and an employment attorney for employment matters).

For more information about Wisconsin employment attorney Michael F. Brown and Peterson, Berk & Cross, S.C., please visit here.

Technorati Profile

Below are the top 5 mistakes I see employees make in employment disputes.  And, I should note, in my own work experience, dating back to the junior high paper route, I personally have made several of these mistakes several times.

Please know these are general opinions, and do not give legal advice for any particular situation.  If you find yourself in an employment dispute and want legal advice, you should contact an employment attorney.

Having encountered thousands of employment disputes, here are the top 5 employee mistakes that I observe.

1. Assuming you are not part of the problem.

If you are part of an employment dispute, then you are part of an employment dispute.  It takes two to tango, as they say.  There is always something you could have done better.  If you do not see how, then you are not being realistic.

Here’s an example, from my own life.  Once long ago, I was laid off, along with a bunch of other workers as part of an organizational change.  An organizational layoff couldn’t be my fault, right?

Before I was laid off, a manager had made statements to me suggesting, notwithstanding the impending organizational change, that my skills would be needed, there was no shortage of work, and he indirectly hinted that my job would be safe.

After I was laid off, I stewed about how that manager had not been forthcoming with me.  How he said this, and he did that.  The same types of thoughts people think before calling an employment attorney.

In my stewing about the manager, I failed to look at the laundry list of things that I did wrong.

Upon hearing of the organizational change, I failed to be proactive.  I failed to make my work, and my skills, visible to the people responsible for the organizational changes.  I failed to look into new skills I could develop, or offer to work on, that would be valuable after the organizational change.  I failed to apply for other jobs, and work on a backup plan just in case there was a layoff (not a hard possibility to predict).

I watched others do proactive things like this, and most of those who did managed to preserve their jobs, while I did not.

In retrospect, I could (1) look at this situation as me being part of a layoff, and a victim of circumstances and a manager’s wrongful assurances; or (2) look at this layoff, as I now do, as my fault for sitting still while the warning lights were blinking, and for thinking I was entitled to jack squat from my manager when I didn’t make him aware of my value.

Is there something you could have done better, to have avoided your situation?

If an employee’s situation involves something more heated than an organizational layoff- say, the employee was fired for alleged performance problems or misconduct- in that event, chances are very good that the employee (even if in the “right”) made many mistakes.  The most common employee mistakes involve communication.

2. Communicating poorly (especially when you’re right).

Poor or negative communication has lost employees far more jobs than any other cause.  Often, people communicate poorly or negatively because they are riding a tide of emotion over something bad or unfair they think the employer did, and feel the need to tell their employer a thing or two.

Do NOT tell your employer off.  Especially if you’re “right” and you “have the documents to prove it.”

Maybe you are itching to tell your employer off, because you think they are 100% wrong and deserve an earful.  Maybe your employer did something patently wrong, like filing false tax returns, or like promoting the owner’s son (who has no experience) over you (who trained the owner’s son after he returned from his third resignation).

I don’t care how obvious the employer’s wrongdoing is, if you try to tell them off, or talk negatively, you will make your situation worse.

When obviously wrong or unfair things occur, too many employees react to these situations by marching up to their employer and telling them exactly how “wrong” or “unfair” they are.  Big mistake.  Remember your audience.  Your audience is the wrongdoer.  (Or perhaps management who assumes liability for the wrongdoer, so they have incentive to deny the wrongdoer’s wrong).

The wrongdoers’ wrongs make sense to them, and feel right to them.  Do you think they really want to hear talk about themselves being “wrong,” “unfair” “lying,” “evil,” “ridiculous,” etc.?

Before you communicate any concerns to your employer, even if in your mind you think you’ll be keeping things polite, ask yourself this: (1) How can I communicate my concern accurately, but without offending?  (Some pointers: stick to the straight facts, consider the character and self-interests of the person you are complaining to, and state your concerns politely; sometimes, this is still not enough).  (2) Can I change the situation?  (If the answer is no, then you should consider securing a new job opportunity as a safety net before you approach the employer about its wrongdoing). (3) Do I have legal rights or other forms of leverage I can use to change things?  (Often, the employee’s leverage pales next to the wrongdoers’).

3. Assuming you have leverage when you don’t.

Often, employees do not have leverage in their employment disputes, but mistakenly think that they do.  Or, they make the mistake of not thinking about leverage at all.  Many employees think that, because they think they’re “right,” that’s all the leverage they need.  But the leverage in being “right” is limited, when the “wrong” party holds the big cards, like the ability to fire you on the spot, and to deprive you of income.

Strong leverage comes in forms like this: when the employee is a top performer with skills that are hard to replace and highly marketable, when the employee is well-regarded by management and the wrongdoer is not, when the employee has strong evidence (e.g. documents, signed witness statements, audiotapes) that proves the employer’s wrongdoing, and when the wrongdoing is of the type that provides strong basis for a legal claim that the employee has the ability to enforce.

However, most workers do not have these types of strong leveraging factors working in their favor.

Many employees assume that because the employer did something obviously bad, that that means there must be a strong legal claim and strong leverage.

Know this: most of the bad things that employers do are not unlawful.  And, of those actions that are unlawful, you may not have means to enforce those legal rights.

4. Assuming legal rights enforce themselves, and not knowing that enforcing legal rights requires a process.

Many employees mistakenly rely on legal rights as if they were a a be-all, end-all.  Many employees think their employers “can’t do that!” because there is a law that says so.

For example, say you qualified for FMLA coverage, your employer denied your medical leave, and you (not thinking about points #1-#3 above) told your HR rep, out of frustration: ”I read on the internet that FMLA law says you HAVE to give me up to twelve weeks off for surgery, and I’m just asking for two.  You can’t deny my FMLA leave!”

Of course the employer can deny your FMLA leave.  Heck, they can fire you on the spot for asking for FMLA leave.  Just because it’s against the law doesn’t mean they can’t do it.

An employer can do a lot of things that are against the law.  Much like you can drive 70 miles per hour where the lawful limit is 65.

When you choose to drive 70, and when an employer chooses to deny a valid medical leave request, these things are usually done in anticipation that the laws will not be enforced.  And in fact, in many instances, the laws are not enforced when wrongdoing occurs.

Know this: the law does not enforce itself, as enforcement requires a process.

For instance, if you speed, say you are driving 70 mph when the limit is 65, the law does not automatically impose itself on the situation, like a flash of lightning from the sky, dropping a ticket in your lap and deducting $150 from your checking account.

Rather, before you are legally liable for speeding, the following process must occur: (1) a legal authority, in this instance a cop, has to observe you speeding; (2) the cop has to catch you, and you may be a tricky bugger to catch, depending on your knowledge of the process (e.g. say you are familiar with radar gun enforcement) and your possible use of tricks to avoid the process (e.g. say you have a radar detector); (3) the cop has to decide to chase you (someone speeding at 70 mph) rather than use the limited resources at hand (1 cop car, and resources for 1 chase at a time) to chase other, worse speeders (others present may be going 80 or 85 mph); (4) if the cop wants to ensure that after you are caught you are held legally liable, he or she will have to collect evidence, like radar gun data, a written statement, etc.; (5) you will have the legal right to go to court and oppose liability, and by doing so you may be successful in knocking a few points and dollars off of the legal maximum for your infraction, or even beat the rap altogether.  If you lose the first proceeding, you can appeal.  If you lose thereafter, you can appeal.

This is just the process for a simple traffic ticket, and I’ve not even captured it completely.

As for processes involved with enforcing employment law rights, those processes, as compared to the process for a speeding ticket, are far more complex, lengthy, and costly.

Chances are that your employer, especially if they are a medium to large sized employer, is very familiar with the legal processes that would apply to your employment dispute, or can afford to hire an attorney who is.  Also, most employers can afford to participate in the legal process– they can afford to pay legal fees and costs– for how ever many months or years the legal process takes.

Is that the case for you?  Have you even considered what the legal processes are for your matter, how long they take, and how much they cost?  If not, you should, before you go marching into management’s office (or meekly backing in, for that matter) and saying something that could get you fired.

5. Thinking “it’s not about money”– yes, it is.

You may want to think that your employment dispute is “not about the money,” but rather it’s about “principle,”  etc. etc.

Of course your employment dispute is “about the money.”  A job is “about money.”  Your employer hired you in hopes that your work provided the employer with more value- more money-  than the value of the wages the employer paid you.  Such is business.

On your part, if an employer takes an adverse action against you– namely, if an employer underpays you, demotes you, or fires you, then the employer’s actions cost you money.  Sometimes a lot.

If parties engage in litigation, then they will have to pay money for legal fees and costs.  Sometimes a lot.

Money is obviously the common denominator in an employment law dispute.  Attorneys know this, and hopefully, your attorney has told you about this.

Why pay a lot of legal fees (e.g. $5,000 retainer cost for pursuing discrimination claim for job termination) if the potential legal award is less (e.g. $3,000 in lost wages following discriminatory termination)?  To prove a “principle?”

If in pursuing a lawsuit you do not stand to gain more money than you pay, then you are better off spending your time and money on things other than a lawsuit.

The function of an employment lawsuit is to seek money.  If you are seeking something different- say, seeking a public good- then focus on processes that are for the public good, such as contacting your legislators, petitioning, volunteering, etc.  I don’t say these things facetiously- I do them all.  But when people approach me outside a volunteering or political context, when they talk to me while I’m wearing my hat as an employment attorney, they are usually seeking to recover money.  Even those people– in fact, especially those people– who are claiming “it’s about the principle.”  Almost without fail, every potential client who has ever stressed to me their matter is about “principle,” has turned out to want far more money than the average person, and to want to pay far less (usually nothing) than the average person toward legal work and costs.  Don’t ask a civil attorney to work for “principle:” be honest with yourself.  If an employer’s negative actions cost you money, then you are motivated to seek money.

An employee rights lawyer is a service provider.  The service is to try to obtain money for an employee who lost money.   If you pay a lawyer $5,000, then the lawyer’s function should be to try to make you, or save you, more than $5,000.

If you don’t recognize these dynamics, and pay money for “principle,” then that is money you will lose.  Losing money is usually the last- and lasting- mistake in employment disputes.

If you are gearing up to give management an earful tomorrow about all the wrongs they have been committing, please give some thought to the big picture before you head off to give your speech.  Especially if you are right, and you have stacks of documents proving you are right.

Being right is not enough.  If your employer thinks the sky is green, and fires you because you insist it is blue, you may be right but you are still fired.  And if you intend on proving (to the point of a legal judgment) that the sky is in fact blue, you have at least a few years of litigation, and a few years of significant expense, to look forward to.  

Most companies know this.   They know they hold your cards– they hold your job and income, and they can take it away.   Abruptly.  If they fire you, they know you will have no income, and that you’ll probably need income if you wish to enforce your legal rights.  They know litigation takes years to complete, and they know they will likely have much more money to pay toward litigation than an individual like you does.

Are you thinking about all these dynamics when you’re planning to confront your manager?  

Now, it’s true that if you complain about your employer’s wrongdoing, there are laws that protect against retaliation.  There are also laws that prohibit speeding and Bernie Madoff-ing, and you can see how effective those laws are as applied to reality.  Sometimes those laws are effective– sometimes wrongdoers get caught and don’t squirm out of a significant legal penalty, but too often the real-life penalties do not turn out like the wronged person would like to think.

Before you give your manager an earful, make sure you have a back-up plan if they fire you.  A real back-up plan.  A new job lined up.  A large nest egg saved up.  Advice from a competent and value-conscious attorney, telling you what potential legal claims and options you have.

But if you believe that simply being right is enough, you are rolling the dice.