Army vet claims discrimination in his case against Siemens

Retired Army Capt. Thomas Carter heads to court this week in his battle against his former employer, Siemens Business Services of Lake Zurich.

Carter's lawsuit stems from Siemens' decision to fire him in 2006. It happened after a female co-worker claimed that Carter - who was angry about something that happened at work - made a remark in which he threatened to kill his manager. He denies making the threat.

Carter, a 54-year-old Streamwood resident who served in the U.S. Army from 1973 to 1996, but was in a finance unit in Fort Bragg, N.C. during the Vietnam War, said the company overreacted to his co-worker's allegation because of his military background and used the he-said/she-said situation as an excuse to fire him.

"If I was not in the military, what could they say? The military background gave them an excuse," he said. "Think of what that means for every vet who's come back from Iraq and Afghanistan."

Carter filed a federal lawsuit against Siemens, accusing the company of defamation of character and retaliatory discharge. He also filed an Illinois Human Rights Commission complaint, claiming he was discriminated against because he is a veteran.

The federal case will be in court Thursday, June 4, and the IHRC complaint on Monday, June 8.

Siemens' Director of Corporate Communication Connie Gregg declined to discuss Carter's case, saying it's company policy not to comment on litigation.

In the IHRC filing, Siemens said it fired Carter for nondiscriminatory reasons, including poor judgment, inappropriate conduct and threatening the life of a manager.

Carter had only worked for Siemens for one year and did not get along with his manager. Carter "refused to recognize him" as his supervisor, Siemens claimed in a court document.

Carter filed a harassment complaint against his supervisor the day before the alleged threat. Carter said he got along fine with the rest of his team members.

After the alleged threat was reported to human resources, Carter said his co-worker sent pictures of him in his military uniform to human resources and he was accused of being part of a military unit "involved in killing."

A few days later, Carter was called into a meeting room and asked by the human resources manager whom he "was going to kill." He answered "nobody," but was terminated on the spot, he said.

Carter's been unemployed since that day more than three years ago and is getting by on contract work. A police report filed with Lake County Sheriff over the alleged threat has prevented him from being hired at other places, Carter said.

What was actually said, and whether discrimination was involved, will be determined by the courts. However, in this hypersensitive world, human resource experts say any threat of workplace violence is - and should be - taken seriously.

Three factors usually weigh into a decision on how a company reacts to such situations, said Philip Deming, a Pennsylvania-based human resource risk management consultant. The factors are: the employee's work history, the workplace dynamics and the individual's personal and professional background.

"There's a historic bias toward people who have been professionally trained at using firearms," Deming said. "Is it fair? To some degree, it is."

Dawn Haag-Hatterer, CEO of Consulting Authority, said an employer's job is to protect all the employees, not just one person. However, termination decisions related to threats tend to be business decisions, she said. Companies will weigh the cost of potential lawsuits against the cost of potential violence.

"We live in a litigious world where employers are becoming more weary of potential risk," Haag-Hatterer said. "Employers are thinking about the bottom line, and they want to reduce their liability."