Phil Cannella Lawsuit – Phil Cannella Wins Spurious Discrimination Claim

Phil Cannella Lawsuit: Phil Cannella was fully and completely exonerated of any discrimination against an employee who filed a claim against him on numerous counts of apparent discrimination. The complaint was filed with the EEOC, the government body dedicated to providing equal work opportunities for all.

“The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal law enforcement agency, that enforces laws against workplace discrimination. The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual’s race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, genetic information, and retaliation for reporting, participating in, and/or opposing a discriminatory practice.”

Phil Cannella Lawsuit: In a nutshell, the claim that was filed against Phil Cannella was spurious. It lacked any substance and the allegations leveled against Phil were demonstrably false and easily documented to be lies. This was recognized by both the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission as  well as the EEOC, both of whom dismissed the complaint on the basis that the allegations being  unsupported in evidence.

Phil Cannella Lawsuit: False EEOC claims are not uncommon. People file such claims in order to make a quick buck, hoping that an employer will quickly settle rather than fight a costly fight they already have to pay for. “If we think about it, filing a false complaint might occur for a variety of reasons, money not being the least of those. Still, every complaint doesn’t result in a lawsuit or even an EEOC complaint. A complaint has to be the result of behavior that is pervasive or severe or both before it rises to the level of being illegal. Keep in mind that lawyers typically don’t take cases they don’t think they can win. Plus, over the last decade, the EEOC dismissed nearly 50% of all sexual harassment complaints and nearly 60% of all other harassment complaints with a finding of No Reasonable Cause. That is not to say that no harassment occurred in those cases (i.e. false allegations,) it more often means that either the offenses were not serious enough to rise to the level of being illegal or there was not enough evidence to support the claim.”

“Going back to the original question: does training, especially training that increases awareness of the large monetary settlements and damage awards, increase the likelihood of an employee filing a false complaint? Logically, we have to answer yes, but how much does it increase the likelihood of a false complaint?”

This is what Phil Cannella was up against. The former employee evidently saw Phil’s success and financial affluence and sought to tap into it by filing a spurious claim that he must have figured Phil would be willing to settle instead of engaging in the long and expensive task of fighting. Litigating such matters is often far more costly than just settling cases like these. Lawyers can be very expensive and these cases can take time. Furthermore, as the defendant in the case usually has the case taken on contingency, there is no risk for the employee who files such as claim. As he or she can’t lose, the depths of depravity have no limit if the individual making up the claims has no ethics to speak of.

This is the backdrop that many employers are up against when fighting false harassment claims. It was a scenario much like this that Phil Cannella was up against when he had to deal with these claims against his pristine character.

As Phil Cannella operates from a level of truth whenever he can, he documented all the lies and he documented all the truths. And as truth can pierce even the well-armored lie, the case against him quick fell asunder. After investigating the matter, the EEOC as well as the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission dismissed the case against him as lacking any substance.

Once again Phil Cannella stood up for his principles and all he considers right.

Leave a Reply