Bank of America

Tech stack is OK if you like Java and Python.

I was hauled in to HR and accused of deliberately following an employee to the lifts. This accusation technique was so brutal it triggered psychological rumination over the matter.

My card swipe records and CCTV showed that there was zero basis for this allegation, and I had bumped into the employee on my regular route to work, using the lifts I always used. The false accuser had lied, saying she only ever saw me use a different set of lifts.

HR then called me back, told me that they had seen CCTV, written a "report" on the matter, and would update the false accuser. When I complained that I suspected the false accuser was spreading rumors in the office, I was made to feel that it was my imagination. HR lied about issuing a "report"; what they actually created was a wishy-washy letter which referred to "general interaction" and totally hid the false accusation.

I had to continue to work in the vicinity of the false accuser, regularly crossing paths with her, and having to put up with multiple people in the office making funny faces at me. I then told the false accuser that I had not deliberately waited for her by the lifts and apologized if I had inadvertently scared her. For this action, HR launched a formal disciplinary against me.

I was then subject to horrendous bullying, humiliation, lying, and shouting in a two-against-one session. There was a clear attempt to get me to make false statements conducive to covering up HR failures and to prevent me from making my case. There was an attempt to browbeat me to accept that they did not know I had not followed the false accuser, even though HR had previously claimed to have viewed CCTV video. The CCTV still images were right in front of them, as it was aggressively claimed that nobody would acknowledge I did not follow the false accuser.

The subsequent carefully massaged outcome was deeply biased, misleading, and fraudulent. It hid the fact I had complained of the false accuser spreading rumors. It hid the fact I had been told HR would update the false accuser but had not. It hid the fact that I had requested explicit acknowledgment of the false accusation. It hid the fact that during the hearing I had requested multiple times for the false accuser to be presented with the CCTV evidence and my swipe records.

HR misbehavior continued, with me being told not to bother appealing and that the appeal manager may investigate me for "sexual harassment" (a totally made accusation by HR designed to put me off appealing).

I did appeal. The appeal outcome does note that I requested the false accuser to be updated but says it was not "normal" to do so and provides no further details. The appeal manager did agree to tell the false accuser to stop spreading rumors.

They used euphemisms such as "high level" and "trying to summarize" in a pathetic attempt to justify why prior documentation had what I would describe as major fraudulent omissions.

The firm refused to acknowledge I had been subject to bullying and kept trying to fob me off. The hearing was recorded, and the audio would be strong evidence of bullying. When I asked HR to listen to the audio, they claimed it had been deleted.

After the appeal, HR agreed to tell the false accuser the truth, and this time I got it written on email that they actually did it.

However, I could not trust HR that they actually did update the false accuser (even though I now had it in writing on an email) as they had spent 6+ months lying, bullying, and stonewalling the matter. I found a new job, resigned, and emailed the false accuser directly with attachments of my swipe entry records, CCTV still images, and described how HR, through deliberate inaction, had sought to hide the truth from her.

When a false allegation is made by an employee, it should be cleared up between both parties, especially when they work in the same floor area. The documentation should be explicit that the accusation was false.

HR documentation should be written in detail and honestly, with zero attempt to cover up HR investigation failures.

"Letters of Education" should not be used to get around proper procedures or to hide evidence from employees accused of HR violations.

If an HR member issues a "Letter of Education" to an employee, they should not then be the HR member to administer a subsequent formal process for that employee because there is a temptation for the HR member to cover up their mishandling of events when the LoE was issued.