Context of accusation

Mike Armas joined Raydiance Inc at the end of 2007 as a VP of business development. At the same time he also became in charge of the Applications group. In January 2008 differences of opinion about the business between Mike A. and George (NOT his real name), the principal applications engineer and my manager at the time, started to become apparent (George reported to Mike A.). Mike A. started an obvious character assassination campaign against George. This campaign consisted of gradual exclusion from important meetings, as some coworkers (I don't want to disclose their names publicly) including myself noted, and negative comments referring directly or indirectly to George and to his performance. These negative comments were unmistakable, as I understood by discussing with other coworkers shortly after incidents occurred, in more than one occasion. Between 19 and 24 January, during the Photonics West conference in San Jose CA, Mike Armas took me aside and asked me to disobey George and to do things the way he (Mike) wanted them to be done. During our conversation Mike A. expressed very clearly his dissatisfaction with George's views and his ways of conducting business. Mike Armas was new to the company and I remained neutral to his proposition. Later, Mike’s negative public comments against George intensified and I started to lean on George’s side. George had a great reputation in the company, his ideas were in general well appreciated and in my opinion, thinking in retrospective, his vision was better than Mike's.

On June 5th, 2008 George decided to leave the company. His departure shocked many employees who manifested their astonishment. A few of them came to me seeking to understand what had happened. By this time Mike’s management style had also affected Tintin (NOT real name), Carolyn Martinez (REAL name), and I (see the Applications group). We were all complaining to each other of unreasonable pressure and lack of clear directions. Some coworkers became aware of our situation. George’s departure brought chaos in the Applications lab. On June 20, 2008 I raised concerns about our deteriorating situation to the attention of the higher management, including Scott Davison, Mike’s boss. Scott spoke to Mike and replied to my email. He asked me if Mike reacted appropriately to my concerns, I replied that I was not entirely satisfied. As a reaction to this Mike Armas immediately appointed Carolyn Martinez as temporary lab manager. Since that moment my work relation with Mike Armas as well as with Carolyn Martinez deteriorated very rapidly.

During this time, some of Mike's business ideas, for which he was in contradiction with George, were rejected by other influential engineers. I took a side in this debate because I was very well placed to understand it, my specialization puts me in a favorable position to judge. I was convinced form early on that Mike's ideas were not viable for our business, because they were contradicting scientific data, and I decided to act in the benefit of the company, trying to avoid what I considered to be a potentially catastrophic waste of resources. My action consisted in supplying scientific data that demonstrated the weakness of Mike's position. For reference I will call this the "metal machining debate". Towards the end of the debate I felt that Mike's confidence in my work had seriously eroded. Mike's behavior towards me worsened and this made me fear for my job. I brought my concerns of losing my job for my involvement in the metal machining debate to the attention of a few trusted coworkers.

On July 1st or 2nd, 2008 Tintin (NOT real name) and I confronted Mike Armas, reacting to his unfair criticism and accusations about our work on that particular day. The discussion was mature, polite, but to the point, and reflected somewhat our general frustration with the situation in the lab. His overall behavior right after that moment and the following days made me believe that he will fire me shortly. Two particular incidents followed, lets call them for the reference the "beef liver" and "beef bone" incidents, which I strongly believe were an attempt to unbalance me and to create precedents with the HR.

Politically speaking, Mike Armas could not fire me for no reason because of my established reputation and good work, and because of George’s precedent (which become public knowledge and affected Mike's reputation). He decided to use his character assassination tactic on me too: elimination from the public scene and undermining of my reputation. During this time my calendar shows a serious decline in general business meetings and customer meetings I was invited to (see graph below, after George's departure). In an email sent on June 03 2008 Mike Armas officially named Carolyn Martinez the "central point of communication for all applications engineering matters", effectively taking me out of the communication loop. Moreover, I was hearing accusations of bad performance from other individuals. Carolyn Martinez, now temporary lab manager and my supervisor, was building a bad performance and insubordination case against me with the HR. During this time I was working hard to resolve my differences with Carolyn Martinez, thinking that they originated from a misunderstanding.

Gradual and systematic exclusion from the public scene

The data was extracted from my Raydiance calender

At the end of Jully 2008 it become clear to me after the "beef liver" and "beef bone" incidents that there was no rationale behind these issues, and that they were a deliberate effort to make my life miserable and to undermine my reputation. One week before I was accused I informed Kathi Safford (HR) that I was thinking of stepping aside because of Mike Armas and Carolyn Martinez. I also contacted Robert Waarts (VP of R&D) expressing serious concerns about the situation in the Applications lab. In my opinion Mike Armas and Carolyne Martinez, who were in close communication with Kathi Safford, saw that I was starting to externalize the conflict and amass evidence against them, and I think they decided to act before the public opinion turned against them, by fabricating the harassment accusations against me.

The morning of August 7th, 2008 Mike Armas signed alone the harassment accusation against me (Accusation.jpg), without having any precedent with the HR on this case. He handed it to me during a meeting that he setup the day before and that he called "The Future" (see The Future meeting.pdf document). No HR person was invited to this meeting, which took place in the HR office! It was only Mike and I. Kathi Safford tried to control the potential damage of Mike's and Carolyn's imprudent and risky maneuver and tried to broaden the case by including other type of accusations. I was sent home immediately after Mike A. handed me the accusation notice. The following days Kathi Safford (HR) was very hard to reach, even though during these crucial moments the HR must provide support for both employees involved in the case. I was denied any specifics about the accusation (see Communication with Kathi.pdf), including the name of the accuser, until my interview with LaRee Kinney from ADP Total Source (HR contractor) 5 days later (Ms. LaRee Kinney conducted the investigation). The investigation concluded in my favor, but Mike Armas decided to fire me anyway. The results of the investigation on the harassment accusation and the decision of discharge were given to me one after the other during the same phone conversation with Kathi Safford and Mike Armas on August 15, 2008.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Contact me for elements of evidence. Cut and paste the context from the text above in order to identify the piece of evidence you are looking for. Everything I wrote here can be substantiated by written documents or supported by a witness.