Woman sues Lusida Rubber Products over alleged forced Scientology sessions

Jump

Operating teatime
....

Hubbard put WISE onto the Scientology Org Board and also onto the chart showing the Scientology Command Channels. Those who administer it certainly have some hidden intentions not disclosed to the people and businesses they sign up.

I got this from Wikipedia..
-----------------------
* Nonfeasance is the failure to act where action is required—willfully or in neglect.

* Misfeasance is the willful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice.

* Malfeasance is the willful and intentional action that injures a party.

Example: A company hires a catering company to provide drinks and food for a retirement party. If the catering company doesn't show up, it's considered nonfeasance. If the catering company shows up but only provides drinks (and not the food, which was also paid for), it's considered misfeasance. If the catering company accepts a bribe from its client's competitor to undercook the meat, thereby giving those present food poisoning, it's considered malfeasance.
------------------------
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Actually the Org Board (per Hubbard) predates the incidents in the OT III story by many trillions of years. The LA Times actually ran a short piece on it back in 1990. :coolwink:
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-27/news/mn-690_1_org-board-s-virtues

Hubbard put WISE onto the Scientology Org Board and also onto the chart showing the Scientology Command Channels. Those who administer it certainly have some hidden intentions not disclosed to the people and businesses they sign up.

The hidden intention is to make it hard to run a business as a Scientologist without giving Hubbard a cut of your gross.
 

phenomanon

Canyon
( snipping other excellent points from post)

What is reading lines from Alice in Wonderland to someone else (and making the words your own) but a covert form of brainwashing indoctrination, anyway? It's taking what someone else says without evaluation and repeating it without thought as if you really mean it. Really slimy, when you think about it. Might be okay for someone in a sales position that has to give a company pitch, but otherwise, that's pretty weird


I really like what you said here. I agree with you that "Alice" is covert brainwashing.
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
I do find it more than minorly ironic when someone who has praised Hubbard's basic courses doesn't seem to be able to understand what is plainly written in a simple sentence.

Lacking basic literacy, WTF got taught ?

added : I'm starting to think that Reasonable is not likely reasonable.

Oh oh!! Be careful of crossing the line there... the forum has rules on personal attacks. Attack the idea, not the person. Reasonable is a long time member here and a good person, entitled to his opinion on this - especially since he was a product of entry into the church via WISE. Can't say that for many who have posted here. If anything, I would love to hear more from him from his perspective.

Keep in mind that the church, WISE and all the front groups spend tremendous amounts of effort to convince people that what they are involved with in the front groups is NOT Scientology, when it really is. What gives these groups legitimacy in that is the fact that everything is claimed to be written by Hubbard as a 'friend of mankind, not owned by Scientology but copyrighted by CST and licensed to the front groups for use. Do you see the deception? Every policy and every bulletin is copyrighted and licensed out for use, even to CoS. And many scientologists past and present do not realize that the church claims they use these as scriptures, giving the church protection under religious freedom laws. Even most people who attended Narconon, who work for them too, resist the idea that they are scientologists for using Scientology because have no idea that they were indoctrinated into Scientology by such deceptive means.

Many public scientologists who have never been on staff think it's all separate as well. The understanding on what policy is and how it is a 'tech' of Scientology in itself, comes with experience and training as a staff or SO. Not all scientologists are created equal in understanding Hubbard's intent and purposes for 'admin tech'. So I would suggest you try to be more tolerant of such, and try to bring better understanding when you encounter comments you disagree with here.

Just an idea...
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Oh oh!! Be careful of crossing the line there... the forum has rules on personal attacks. Attack the idea, not the person. <snip>

The Mods do a good job. If you feel they missed something in my post do let 'em know.

Hall Monitors? Oh well, have a nice day.

Did you miss the woman was filing suit over being forced to participate in SCIENTOLOGY.
Perhaps she filed suit over WISE or some front group and I missed that ?

Yes, many front groups try to hide from their association with scientology - as has been covered on so many other threads over the years.
 
Last edited:

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
The Mods do a good job. If you feel they missed something in my post do let 'em know.

Hall Monitors? Oh well, have a nice day.

You misunderstand. If I thought you violated the forum rules, I would have PM'd you first, and if you didn't correct what ever you wrote in a comment that was a violation, I would have then reported the post to the mods.

Thing is, you didn't violate the rules but you were coming close to it by what you said about Reasonable. I wanted you to know so that you didn't wind up crossing the line in future comments. That's all.

I wrote that for your benefit, as well as his and the forum thread. Arguments can escalate quickly but they are avoidable. That was my intent. Please don't be upset.
 

pineapple

Silver Meritorious Patron
... <snip> ...

The comm course is not entirely innocent, either. Remember the first two bulletins - KSW and tech degrades? Remember the wordclearing and clay demos to really drive those points hard into a person's brain?

... <snip> ...

I realize these things changed a lot over the years, but when I did the Comm Course (1975, at a mission), it did not include KSW or "Tech Degrades" and there were no clay demos. There was a little booklet, not the standard course pack with a checksheet. There was no actual red and white or green and white at all. The BSM (Basic Study Manual) which I think was the 2nd course I did, was much the same, though that DID have clay demos, obviously (since that was the course where you learned to do them).

The standard scn course pack with KSW and "Tech Degrades" didn't come along until the HQS Course (3rd course I did and most people did then). It seems to me those policies would have been way too frightening for brand new people. But I think CoS gets more and more divorced from reality as the years go by. Maybe 40 years ago they still had some sense of how this blood-curdling rhetoric would sound to someone who was encountering it for the first time.
 

George Layton

Silver Meritorious Patron
Oh oh!! Be careful of crossing the line there... the forum has rules on personal attacks. Attack the idea, not the person. Reasonable is a long time member here and a good person, entitled to his opinion on this - especially since he was a product of entry into the church via WISE. Can't say that for many who have posted here. If anything, I would love to hear more from him from his perspective.

Keep in mind that the church, WISE and all the front groups spend tremendous amounts of effort to convince people that what they are involved with in the front groups is NOT Scientology, when it really is. What gives these groups legitimacy in that is the fact that everything is claimed to be written by Hubbard as a 'friend of mankind, not owned by Scientology but copyrighted by CST and licensed to the front groups for use. Do you see the deception? Every policy and every bulletin is copyrighted and licensed out for use, even to CoS. And many scientologists past and present do not realize that the church claims they use these as scriptures, giving the church protection under religious freedom laws. Even most people who attended Narconon, who work for them too, resist the idea that they are scientologists for using Scientology because have no idea that they were indoctrinated into Scientology by such deceptive means.

Many public scientologists who have never been on staff think it's all separate as well. The understanding on what policy is and how it is a 'tech' of Scientology in itself, comes with experience and training as a staff or SO. Not all scientologists are created equal in understanding Hubbard's intent and purposes for 'admin tech'. So I would suggest you try to be more tolerant of such, and try to bring better understanding when you encounter comments you disagree with here.

Just an idea...


So can you be a hubbardist without being a scientologist?
Can you be a scientologist without being a hubbardist?
 

Leland

Crusader
If I'm not mistaken.....

How many employee's are on (a cult course) IS some sort of stat for a WISE company.

Of course, there would be hatting...and these would all be cult courses....

but actually "on lines" at an org....isn't that some sort of stat too?
 

hummingbird

Patron with Honors
I just think this lawsuit is such excellent news. She will prevail, and get a glob of money. Can't wait for the outcome!!!

:biggrin:
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
The headline of the linked article is misleading, but the body of the article contains an important development.

My News LA: Arbitration for worker allegedly fired for not attending Scientology classes

http://mynewsla.com/crime/2016/03/0...not-attending-on-the-job-scientology-classes/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Arbitration for worker allegedly fired for not attending Scientology classes

POSTED BY HILLARY JACKSON ON MARCH 8, 2016 IN CRIME | 36 VIEWS | LEAVE A RESPONSE

Attorneys for a Pasadena company contend that a former employee’s lawsuit, alleging she was fired for refusing to participate in mandatory on-the-job Scientology classes, should be submitted to arbitration.

The lawyers, who represent Lusida Rubber Products Inc., also argue in newly filed court papers that a judge should consider dismissing Annie R. Lee’s lawsuit because it was filed “in direct violation” of a mandatory arbitration provision in her employment agreement.


“(Lee) should be prohibited from using this improperly filed lawsuit as a vehicle to publicize her wrongful-employment-related accusations against (Lusida),” the defense attorneys state in their court papers.

The Lusida attorneys say the arbitration agreement language in the employment agreement Lee signed was “detailed and unambiguous” and that she had the opportunity to consult with a lawyer before she signed the document.

Lee’s lawsuit, filed Dec. 8 in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges wrongful termination, religious discrimination, failure to prevent religious discrimination, harassment and retaliation

[SNIP]

Lusida provides custom rubber and plastic molds as well as other products nationwide for food processors, appliance manufacturers and other industries, according to the company’s attorneys’ court papers. A hearing on the Lusida motion is scheduled for May 9.

— City News Service


* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
 
The headline of the linked article is misleading, but the body of the article contains an important development.

My News LA: Arbitration for worker allegedly fired for not attending Scientology classes

http://mynewsla.com/crime/2016/03/0...not-attending-on-the-job-scientology-classes/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Arbitration for worker allegedly fired for not attending Scientology classes

POSTED BY HILLARY JACKSON ON MARCH 8, 2016 IN CRIME | 36 VIEWS | LEAVE A RESPONSE

Attorneys for a Pasadena company contend that a former employee’s lawsuit, alleging she was fired for refusing to participate in mandatory on-the-job Scientology classes, should be submitted to arbitration.

The lawyers, who represent Lusida Rubber Products Inc., also argue in newly filed court papers that a judge should consider dismissing Annie R. Lee’s lawsuit because it was filed “in direct violation” of a mandatory arbitration provision in her employment agreement.


“(Lee) should be prohibited from using this improperly filed lawsuit as a vehicle to publicize her wrongful-employment-related accusations against (Lusida),” the defense attorneys state in their court papers.

The Lusida attorneys say the arbitration agreement language in the employment agreement Lee signed was “detailed and unambiguous” and that she had the opportunity to consult with a lawyer before she signed the document.

Lee’s lawsuit, filed Dec. 8 in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges wrongful termination, religious discrimination, failure to prevent religious discrimination, harassment and retaliation

[SNIP]

Lusida provides custom rubber and plastic molds as well as other products nationwide for food processors, appliance manufacturers and other industries, according to the company’s attorneys’ court papers. A hearing on the Lusida motion is scheduled for May 9.

— City News Service


* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
My question - is it a binding or nonbinding arbitration? If it is nonbinding, if she doesn't like the outcome, she can go to court. Mimsey
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
My question - is it a binding or nonbinding arbitration? If it is nonbinding, if she doesn't like the outcome, she can go to court. Mimsey
Generally speaking, all contractual arbitration is binding. (With VERY limited review by the courts.) If a contractual dispute resolution process is not binding, it is referred to as "mediation" and not "arbitration." I'd be shocked if the arbitration clause in the contract did not provide for binding arbitration.
 
Generally speaking, all contractual arbitration is binding. (With VERY limited review by the courts.) If a contractual dispute resolution process is not binding, it is referred to as "mediation" and not "arbitration." I'd be shocked if the arbitration clause in the contract did not provide for binding arbitration.
I ask because I was sued once, and the first step was arbitration - and we got a unfavorable result - the arbitrator didn't really take the time to really understand the case - so my ins co refused his ruling, and we went to trial - it wasn't a jury trial, and the judge ruled against the plaintiff after he presented his case, saying he didn't prove fault on my part. I never had to defend myself.

That's why I ask if it was binding or not.

Mimsey
 

Leland

Crusader
Would an "Arbitration Contract" that an employee might be asked to sign.....that gave away her Constitutional Rights.....be legal?

There are already laws on the books about no employment discrimination in regards to religion....and a company that has an employee sign an arbitration agreement that gives away that right....seems "iffy." IMO
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
I ask because I was sued once, and the first step was arbitration - and we got a unfavorable result - the arbitrator didn't really take the time to really understand the case - so my ins co refused his ruling, and we went to trial - it wasn't a jury trial, and the judge ruled against the plaintiff after he presented his case, saying he didn't prove fault on my part. I never had to defend myself.

That's why I ask if it was binding or not.

Mimsey
I understand. I suspect that was what is called "judicial 'arbitration'" -- a dispute resolution mechanism used by some courts (i.e., not pursuant to contract) to try to resolve cases before trial. In such a "judicial 'arbitration'" is binding only if someone doesn't opt out. If someone opts out, then it is not binding and the case goes to trial. The contractual arbitration in the Lusida Rubber Products case is almost certainly binding arbitration -- subject to VERY limited court review.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Would an "Arbitration Contract" that an employee might be asked to sign.....that gave away her Constitutional Rights.....be legal?

There are already laws on the books about no employment discrimination in regards to religion....and a company that has an employee sign an arbitration agreement that gives away that right....seems "iffy." IMO

Here's the federal regulation from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
7. SUBJECT MATTER:

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission), the federal agency charged with the
interpretation and enforcement of this nation’s employment
discrimination laws, has taken the position that agreements that
mandate binding arbitration of discrimination claims as a
condition of employment are contrary to the fundamental
principles evinced in these laws
. EEOC Motions on Alternative
Dispute Resolution, Motion 4 (adopted Apr. 25, 1995), 80 Daily
Lab. Rep. (BNA) E-1 (Apr. 26, 1995).1 This policy statement sets
out in further detail the basis for the Commission’s position.

I. Background

An increasing number of employers are requiring as a
condition of employment that applicants and employees give up
their right to pursue employment discrimination claims in court
and agree to resolve disputes through binding arbitration. These
agreements may be presented in the form of an employment contract
or be included in an employee handbook or elsewhere. Some
employers have even included such agreements in employment
applications. The use of these agreements is not limited

to particular industries, but can be found in various sectors of
the workforce, including, for example, the securities industry,
retail, restaurant and hotel chains, health care, broadcasting,
and security services. Some individuals subject to mandatory
arbitration agreements have challenged the enforceability of
these agreements by bringing employment discrimination actions in
the courts. The Commission is not unmindful of the case law
enforcing specific mandatory arbitration agreements, in
particular, the Supreme Court’s decision in Gilmer v.
Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 33 (1991).2 Nonetheless,
for the reasons stated herein, the Commission believes that such
agreements are inconsistent with the civil rights laws.

It goes on in more detail at the link, but the bottom line is that any arbitration agreement, signed as a condition of employment, is void in cases of alleged discrimination.

The case revolves around an allegation of religious discrimination, where the employee was terminated due to refusal to engage in religious-based instruction. As such, the EEOC regulation applies.

She and her lawyer should proceed to trial, and ignore any arbitration agreement as being invalid in this case.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
At least FOUR employees sued Lusida Rubber Products for forcing Scientology on them

At least FOUR employees sued Lusida Rubber Products for forcing Scientology on them.

Tony Orega has an update.

Turns out at least FOUR employees sued Pasadena firm that forced Scientology on them.

http://tonyortega.org/2016/03/14/tu...asadena-firm-that-forced-scientology-on-them/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Turns out at least FOUR employees sued Pasadena firm that forced Scientology on them

By Tony Ortega, The Underground Bunker, March 14, 2016

In December, we told you about a lawsuit filed by a woman named Annie R. Lee against a Pasadena company, Lusida Rubber Products, after she claimed she was fired for refusing to take Scientology courses forced on her by her employer.

Last week, an L.A. website reported that Lusida had filed a motion hoping to end the lawsuit and force Lee into binding arbitration, which is a common tactic used by the Church of Scientology itself against its former members.

Now, we’ve learned that Lee’s isn’t the only lawsuit filed recently by former Lusida employees, and that Lusida successfully forced the others to drop their suit in favor of arbitration. And we also now have a copy of the employment contract that Lee signed when she went to work at the company, and we think you’ll be surprised to read some of its terms.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
 
Top