• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

wrongful termination

Found it!

I am on PACER now and found the case. It appears at first blush that Ryan first brought the suit in the Monroe County Circuit Court in November and then UL brought a Petition for Removal to send it to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana...

I'm just copying documents and such at the moment, and will update when I am done at PACER.
 
Okay, I'm laughing too much to write all of this now, but will write more in a while :)
 
Anti-sophist said:
I want to know which truthers are going to donate and how much. 28th kingdom has said he's willing to bet his life and the life of his friends on 9/11 being an inside job. Surely throwing a few dollars into this would be worth it to him.
Click to expand...

Glad he hates us...
 
LashL said:
Okay, I'm laughing too much to write all of this now, but will write more in a while :)
Click to expand...
Desperately hanging on for your followup post, oh Willing Sharer Of JREF Badges To Those Of Us Who Must Sally Forth Into The World Of Woo Essentially Badgeless...
 
Metullus said:
I'm guessing that your reaction is not a good sign for our friend Ryan?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I shouldn't have laughed but I started writing out a synopsis with reference to the various documents that have been filed, and then got sidetracked by a bit of a laughing fit when I started envisioning this actually playing out in court because all of the usual, old, lame, long debunked conspiracy theories are included in the complaint and I was visualizing a judge sitting there, hearing this for the first time and trying to contain himself or herself.

And that, in turn, reminded me of a local case here in which a man sued several corporations as well as municipal, provincial and federal government representatives for "discriminating" against him because he was, he said, a Martian. The judgment of the court in that case was brilliant, actually, and the judge managed to deliver it with a straight face, but ohhhhhhh, being there was priceless. Long story, but it just reminded me of this case for some reason and I couldn't help laughing.

Back to the Ryan case...

The documents are all in pdf format and I don't know how to upload them directly to the web to make them readable "as is" so instead I will just post a synopsis and then work on making the actual documents available online if someone can give me some guidance on how to upload pdf files.

In a nutshell, Ryan brought his complaint in Monroe County Circuit Court initially (with unusual choices in lawyers at first blush, but maybe there's more to them than meets the eye and I haven't done any in-depth research on them. Others who wish to might check out Rudolph Wm. Savich, Mick Harrison, and Kara Reagan in Bloomington, Indiana, are invited to do so. At first blush, they appear to be focussed on family and environmental law, but who knows?)

Then, it appears that UL brought a petition to remove the case from the Monroe County Circuit Court because it was the wrong jurisdiction in the circumstances, and UL was successful so it was moved to the U.S. District Court, Southern Distict of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

At the District Court, UL has brought a motion to dismiss the claim and they have filed their brief in that regard, but so far, Ryan hasn't filed his response to the motion to dismiss.

I'll be happy to post the pdfs if someone can give me a hint on how to do that. Alternatively, I can email them to someone who knows how to post them :)

He includes all of the standard old, long debunked conspiracy theories in his complaint - which he couldn't really avoid because he wrote them in his letter to NIST under his UL credentials from UL email, etc., and then sent them to conspiracy sites to post on the internet, which is why he got fired in the first place, but then frames his claim as constitutional issues and freedom of speech issues - against his employer, who is not a governmental agency or actor - in a claim for wrongful dismissal - the mind boggles.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
And that, in turn, reminded me of a local case here in which a man sued several corporations as well as municipal, provincial and federal government representatives for "discriminating" against him because he was, he said, a Martian. The judgment of the court in that case was brilliant, actually, and the judge managed to deliver it with a straight face, but ohhhhhhh, being there was priceless. Long story, but it just reminded me of this case for some reason and I couldn't help laughing.
Click to expand...

You tease! This sounds more interesting than Ryan's case.

Wha' happened?
 
LashL said:
He includes all of the standard old, long debunked conspiracy theories in his complaint - which he couldn't really avoid because he wrote them in his letter to NIST under his UL credentials from UL email, etc., and then sent them to conspiracy sites to post on the internet, which is why he got fired in the first place, but then frames his claim as constitutional issues and freedom of speech issues - against his employer, who is not a governmental agency or actor - in a claim for wrongful dismissal - the mind boggles.
Click to expand...

Well, I had a thought that maybe UL was some sort of public company - like PBS or the NEA. But the UL website says otherwise. Then I thought that maybe UL does so much government work that it somehow becomes an arm of the government. Once again, the website appears to indicate that there is no federal or state law that makes UL certification mandatory, so that's a non-starter.

The only thing left is that UL's personnel manual somehow carves out a right to free speech. If it does, it would be the worst personnel manual ever. I mean, I cannot imagine UL's lawyers letting something like that slip through.

I don't see much of a basis for this suit. If it's an attempt to get information from a company that does not have to respond to FOIA requests, it's a poor one.
 
Loss Leader said:
Well, I had a thought that maybe UL was some sort of public company - like PBS or the NEA. But the UL website says otherwise. Then I thought that maybe UL does so much government work that it somehow becomes an arm of the government. Once again, the website appears to indicate that there is no federal or state law that makes UL certification mandatory, so that's a non-starter.

The only thing left is that UL's personnel manual somehow carves out a right to free speech. If it does, it would be the worst personnel manual ever. I mean, I cannot imagine UL's lawyers letting something like that slip through.

I don't see much of a basis for this suit. If it's an attempt to get information from a company that does not have to respond to FOIA requests, it's a poor one.
Click to expand...
.

Ryan doesn't claim in his complaint that UL is a public company, nor does he claim that UL is a government agency. He acknowledges that UL is a not for profit corporation that purchased the previous corporation that Ryan worked for - Environmental Health Laboratories, Inc, and that UL operates the successor UL Drinking Water Laboratory with which Ryan was employed.

I agree with you that there isn't much basis for this claim. UL is not subject to FOIA requests, and the claim is frivolous on its face as framed (not least of which is because they've framed it as constitutional issues for the most part in reference to an employer who is not a gov't actor). It looks like they're trying to simultaneously set it up as a "whistleblower" case (where the so called whistleblower is only blowing conspiracy theories out his [rule 8]) and as a constitutional case (where there is no constitutional basis for the claim). There is nothing in the claim that alleges any right to free speech set out in an employee manual or otherwise - that claim, as written in the complaint, appears to be based solely on the U.S. Constitution, which of course does not apply in the circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
The only thing left is that UL's personnel manual somehow carves out a right to free speech. If it does, it would be the worst personnel manual ever. I mean, I cannot imagine UL's lawyers letting something like that slip through.
Click to expand...
I'll quote from section 4.5a, paragraph 1 regarding using UL credentials to make wild, unsupported claims and rant against the government:

"It is totally cool for any UL employee to say anything about the company, its inner workings, price structure, stock plans or procedures. I mean, hey, if you want to tell other people that UL is planning a merger next week and that causes our stock price to tank, what do we care?"
 
MortFurd said:
There's more to the coffee story than most folks know.
Click to expand...

Not to derail the thread, but...frankly, so what? So McDonalds had their coffee hotter than other places? How does that make a difference? If, by 70 years of age, you haven't learned not to hold hot coffee between your legs, you probably deserve what's coming to you. I'm only in my mid 20's, and I've already learned this :) There were probably dozens of times where I could have burned myself pretty badly with a Tim Hortons coffee, but that's why I don't take any stupid risks.

Or, assuming she was senile, it should be her grandson being liable for allowing her to have a hot beverage inside his vehicle. Either way, I don't see that McDonalds did anything wrong.

Anyway, McDonalds coffee is so horrible that I dare say she's probably lucky she didn't get to drink it.....
 
All three of Ryan's lawyers are into "Big Brother" cases against gov't or large corp. on the behalf of common person's groups.

Chemical weapons facility issues, forestry issues and state leasing of toll roads.

Ryan has chosen lawyers that are about as politicaly liberal as they come in the USA who's main practice seems to be 'fighting for the little guy' against large entities.

In that, his choice may be good.
 
Last edited:
c6gunner said:
Not to derail the thread, but...frankly, so what? So McDonalds had their coffee hotter than other places? How does that make a difference? If, by 70 years of age, you haven't learned not to hold hot coffee between your legs, you probably deserve what's coming to you. I'm only in my mid 20's, and I've already learned this :) There were probably dozens of times where I could have burned myself pretty badly with a Tim Hortons coffee, but that's why I don't take any stupid risks.

Or, assuming she was senile, it should be her grandson being liable for allowing her to have a hot beverage inside his vehicle. Either way, I don't see that McDonalds did anything wrong.

Anyway, McDonalds coffee is so horrible that I dare say she's probably lucky she didn't get to drink it.....
Click to expand...

Actually, there really is more to the McD's coffee story than you know and despite the bad press that it got (bad in the sense of derision resulting from it), it also received the worse form of "bad press" - which is the kind of press that fails to report the actual facts and just goes for the sensationalism. Had they reported the actual facts of the case, I think that people would realize that it was a proper decision in the circumstances and would realize that there was good reason for it to be made.

What you don't know is that McD's did, in fact, know that their coffee was so fricking hot that it had caused serious injuries to others before this particular case, and they still failed to deal with the problem despite several incidents and actual knowledge of those incidents and injuries.

Sorry, but they really should have dealt with it. There is no rational excuse for continuing to serve coffee at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns after you've been made well aware of those injuries and the potential for more.

And the injuries this woman suffered were horrific, not something you'd wish upon your sister, mother, or grandmother, etc. MortFurd is right.
 
jaydeehess said:
All three of Ryan's lawyers are into "Big Brother" cases against gov't or large corp. on the behalf of common person's groups.

Chemical weapons facility issues, forestry issues and state leasing of toll roads.

Ryan has chosen lawyers that are about as politicaly liberal as they come in the USA who's main practice seems to be 'fighting for the little guy' against large entities.

In that, his choice may be good.
Click to expand...

Maybe - but having their bearings in family and environmental law doesn't bode too well...

ETA: although if you have more info on them, please elaborate. I did a cursory search on them and wasn't impressed, personally.

On the up side, at least they all seem to do a lot of pro bono work, probably including his case, so he shouldn't have to worry about legal fees.... oh wait....
 
Last edited:
I don't know how to upload the pdf files of the documents but ~enigma~ has kindly offered to assist, so I am going to send the files to him by email tomorrow and he'll get them uploaded in a readable format for anyone who is interested in reading the original documents from Ryan's suit :)


(Thanks, ~enigma~!)
 
LashL said:
I don't know how to upload the pdf files of the documents but ~enigma~ has kindly offered to assist, so I am going to send the files to him by email tomorrow and he'll get them uploaded in a readable format for anyone who is interested in reading the original documents from Ryan's suit :)


(Thanks, ~enigma~!)
Click to expand...
Wait a sec...these papers are Ryan's suit? Don't touch them because nobody here is interested in seeing that guy nude.
 
LashL said:
Maybe - but having their bearings in family and environmental law doesn't bode too well...

ETA: although if you have more info on them, please elaborate. I did a cursory search on them and wasn't impressed, personally.

On the up side, at least they all seem to do a lot of pro bono work, probably including his case, so he shouldn't have to worry about legal fees.... oh wait....
Click to expand...
Excellent stuff, LashL and also Loss Leader. Great research and information.

Man, you guys are...

Just wait a minute.

LashL (LL) and Loss Leader (LL). Are you guys the same poyson? C'mon, don't lawyer up on me now! Has anyone ever seen LashL and Loss Leader in an undoctored photo together?

Just for that: I'm a gonna send my Hero Ryan a sawbuck!
 
ConspiRaider said:
LashL (LL) and Loss Leader (LL). Are you guys the same poyson? C'mon, don't lawyer up on me now! Has anyone ever seen LashL and Loss Leader in an undoctored photo together?
Click to expand...


Well there was that one time down at the reservation...

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom