Whether LabCorp's change in work schedule from full-time to vacation coverage constitutes retaliatory conduct in violation of the company's Code of Conduct and the Civil Rights Act of 1964

I. Petitioner began working for LabCorp in San Diego, California August 24, 2020. Her first and only performance review was December 15, 2020. Petitioner ’s response to Dr. Gordana Stevanovic ’s query on Petitioner ’s thoughts about working at LabCorp so far, Petitioner responded that “it was ok except for the bullying and harassing management style. ” Petitioner also wrote this on her review form which was submitted to the court Document 16-4 Filed 06/06/22 PageID.442 Page 287, Exhibit 15). Dr. Stevanovic (Chief of Anatomic Pathology) and Ms. Melissa Thompson (Anatomic Pathology Manager) at the end of business that day responded to her review comments by changing Petitioner ’s work schedule from full time to vacation coverage, which based on industry standards is not part-time and does not require Petitioner to purchase malpractice insurance as malpractice is covered by a clause in the malpractice insurance of the vacationing pathologist. LabCorp claimed that vacation coverage was part-time and the contract signed by Petitioner was for parttime. However, verbally, Petitioner was told by Dr. Stevanovic that she would be working full-time and advised Petitioner to get full-time malpractice insurance and not part-time. Petitioner worked full-time until after her review when she was changed to vacation only. This change in schedule exemplifies the business term of “quiet firing. ” It is also a violation of LabCorp ’s Code of Conduct where they state “Labcorp prohibits retaliation in any form. Retaliation includes any adverse employment action taken against an employee as a means of punishing or seeking retribution against an employee for (a) raising a good faith concern about a potential violation of applicable law, regulation, this Code or other Company policy. ” LabCorp does not live up to its Code of Conduct. During her tenure at LabCorp, Petitioner had discussed other concerning issues with Dr. Stevanovic ’s regarding business practices. This is discussed at length in the Introduction section along with the stalking and how both have affected Petitioner ’s employment over the years and continues to this day. What you will find inside LabCorp is a working environment that is toxic and in direct violation of their Code of Conduct and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By reporting her concerns in her review, Petitioner was following the LabCorp guidelines for reporting harassment and retaliatory behavior. A guideline that LabCorp does not respect. Petitioner found an employment lawyer; Mr. Anthony McClaren. Her remembrances with LabCorp were emailed to Mr. McClaren on January 7, 2021. In her remembrances, she notified Mr. McClaren of her indirect stalkers. Dr. Stevanovic was also aware to notify Petitioner when her stalkers showed up. Names of the stalkers were provided to both. These stalkers have not missed an employment location of Petitioner ’s yet. They have been able to stalk Petitioner through the credentialing is indirect stalking and there pr^cejss^as em^l^^^nt history is verified; technically this * Pdtitifffier h® reen trying for twenty (20) years to get the stalking to stop. All lawyers have refused to assist as there are no laws to use against indirect stalking. Two n lawyers have recommended that if a current employer does something egregious whereby law is available and it is known that the stalkers have stalked Petitioner to that place of employment, then fde a lawsuit against the current employer for their egregious acts and use that lawsuit as an avenue to get Petitioner ’s stalkers into court. Petitioner has so far attempted this legal route three times with this case being the second case. With the first two cases, Petitioner ’s lawyers both allowed the direction of the case to be guided by Petitioner ’s stalkers. The first case was Rust v RPA in Victoria Texas (4-18-cv-03005 U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division). In the end, Petitioner ’s lawyer said he filed a Qui Tam but never di