Phil Cannella Lawsuit – Phil Cannella Absolved of Discrimination

Phil Cannella Lawsuit: Phil Cannella is not alone as a man who has achieved a position in the national spotlight. And he is not alone among such people to be accused of things he has never done, to be accused of all manner of wrongdoing, regardless of the truth.

Phil Cannella Lawsuit: It seems common today to hit out at celebrities, at politicians and at successful businessmen in an attempt to gain some sort of advantage because of one’s own shortcomings. Some people just cannot make it on their own two feet and find it easier to make a gain in some sort of unethical way by spreading lies. Perhaps some time in the future, in a more enlightened age, we will have a society that can operate on a truly moral and ethical level all around. Until such time however, it is a fact of life that even the most saintly saint needs to look out for those who might try to tear him or her down.

Phil Cannella Lawsuit: Phil Cannella as a very successful businessman is in just such a position. Having reached national acclaim through his Crash Proof Retirement˜ system and seeing such exponential success with thousands of consumers beating a path to his door year in and year out to hear him, to see him, to get financial direction from him, Phil became the target of some competitors whose lies were intended to defame and degrade his name.

Phil Cannella Lawsuit: One such accusation was of claimed discrimination against an employee. Discrimination in the workplace is a very serious matter and a problem for any business. “The threat of discrimination claims has become a basic part of the landscape for businesses both small and large. Particularly since Anita Hill became a household name, many if not most personnel decisions pose at least some risk of being construed, or misconstrued, as evidencing an employer’s intent to illegally discriminate against one or more employees.”

Phil Cannella Lawsuit: Discrimination need not just be based on the more commonly thought of discrimination based on race, color, religious creed or one’s sex. Another form of discrimination can be based on the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). Most recently, this was the exact claim levelled against Phil Cannella that was filed by an employee who was in a protected class due to both his age and a disability covered by the ADA. Phil Cannella found himself having to defend against some things he didn’t do.

“The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, generally prohibit an employer from discriminating against an employee in hiring, firing, tenure and the terms, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of race, color, religious creed, ancestry, age (defined to include persons between the ages of 40 and 70), sex or national origin. Sexual harassment is categorized as a form of discrimination on the basis of sex. The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act also provide protections against discrimination on the basis of non-job related handicaps or disabilities. However, ADA claims involve considerations very different from race and gender-based discrimination….”

The American justice system is also designed in such a way that anyone can sue anyone for anything. It sounds ridiculous but it is very true. As this same very apt article goes on to explain: “It is impossible to entirely eliminate the risk of a claim for unlawful discrimination. In America, anyone can sue anyone for anything.”

In Phil Cannella’s case he was truly facing a frivolous claim yet he still had to go to the expense and effort to defend his character and name, Fortunately, the government bodies responsible for investigating these claims can often discern the difference between a valid claim and a fictitious one. “However, the courts and administrative agencies charged with handling discrimination claims have various procedural devices available to dispose of frivolous claims prior to trial. In order to minimize the risk of discrimination claims and maximize the prospect for early resolution of non-meritorious claims, employers should consider the following insights from an attorney who has handled numerous cases on behalf of both employers and employees.”

In his defense, Phil Cannella presented to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission all the facts relating to the allegations. Truth can dispel a lie and this is what Phil Cannella set out to do. Just like the mantra of his company, Retirement Media Inc.: “Bringing Truth to the American Retiree”, Phil Cannella brought truth to the investigating bodies charged with looking into this claim. There were many allegations of discrimination and harassment and the difficulties with these types of claims is that they so often fall into the realm of “he says – she says” and these cases become difficult to disprove for it becomes the word of one person against another and in these types of cases the law will more often side with the employee who may have been discriminated against rather than the employer.

Again, with the mantra of “truth” at his heart, Phil Cannella had kept good “historical” records that not only proved that this employee had not been discriminated against but in fact if anything reflected that he had been given many accommodations not afforded other employees. It was this that really hurt the most for Phil Cannella. After lending this employee more than a helping hand, to get bitten back in an attempt to extort money out of him was not palatable at all and felt like a real slap in the face.

The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, after investigating the claims, dismissed them outright and found Phil Cannella not guilty of discrimination. Justice was upheld and Phil Cannella has been righted once again of vicious lies levelled against him.