The Due Process Advocate - No Person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law - Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution The Due Process Advocate The Due Process Advocate Subscription Form
The Due Process Advocate


Due Process 101

 

About 

Registration 

Authorized Affiliates 

 

 
 


John J. Pepi, Sr.
Ph.D. Candidate in Education / Due Process Advocate
Business Location: Worcester, Massachusetts
Email: jjpepisr65@gmail.com



Background Information

Education
    Doctoral Candidate at University of Phoenix
    (Doctor of Education in Education Leadership)
    2012 to Present

    Cambridge College
    Master of Education in Educational Leadership

    Worcester State College
    Bachelor of Science., Psychology; Minor., Secondary Education
Certifications
    Licensure of health and physical education grades K-12;
    Licensure supervisor and director; and
    Licensure in principal-ship of elementary, middle, and high schools.

Business Description

Current Areas of Interest, Activity, and Professional Service*
  • Completion of Doctoral Degree in Education Leadership;

  • Continued Research in Corporate Employer-Employee Relationships;

  • Consulting to Corporations Regarding Employment Practices;

  • Consulting to Individuals Regarding Wrongful Termination;

  • Providing Expert Witness Testimony in Wrongful Termination Lawsuits;

  • Providing Advocacy for "Anti-Bullying;" and

  • Promoting "Due Process" Education

* All inquiries held in the strict confidence

Information for Prospective Clients

Although research, writing, pre-litigation, advocacy and consulting services are provided to individual teachers, students, and parents nationwide, most clients are Massachusetts residents involved in what they believe to be illegal actions taken by an employer pursuant to a wrongful employment termination.

Wrongful employment terminations are extremely complex and, therefore, require a great deal of analysis and identification of facts in order to determine (a) whether a viable "case" exists pursuant to the recovery of damages, and (b) the identification of viable strategies and resources that might be utilized to pursue any such recovery.

With regard to this analysis, the following are some factors often evaluated:
  • the existence of psychological abuse in the workplace;
  • the existence of violent behavior in the workplace;
  • the existence of intentional abuse on the part of superiors;
  • the existence of incompetence on the part of superiors;
  • the existence of discriminatory practices in the workplace;
  • the existence of multiple abusers working in concert ("mobbing");
  • the existence of fabrication in bad performance evaluations; and
  • the existence of due process violations.
These facts, weighed appropriately given the applicable statutory and case law in your jurisdiction, will dictate the viability of your case.

The depth and extend of evaluation will be determined in advance of any assignment so that that you know exactly what services and costs to expect. Many clients are pleasantly surprised to learn that this "screening" phase does not have to be overly burdensome or expensive and does not create an obligation for further costs. On the other hand, a client can save a substantial time and money by integrating the results into their formal legal action if and as legal counsel is hired to litigate alleged wrongdoing and claims for damages.

Prospective clients should prepare a one-page synopsis and forward it to Mr. Pepi. The information will be immediately review and a preliminary phone conference will be scheduled at no cost or obligation.


Useful Reference Materials

 
Description
 
Massachusetts law about bullying and cyber bullying; A compilation of laws, regulations, cases, and web sources on bullying and cyberbullying law.
 
Published By
 
Mass.gov
 
URL
 



 
Description
 
Laws and Guidance
 
Published By
 
U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission
 
URL
 



 
Description
 
Weingarten Rights
In 1975 the United States Supreme Court in the case of NLRE v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 420 U.S. 251 upheld a National Labor Relations Board's decision that employees have a right to union representation or legal representation during investigatory interviews. The Weingarten Rights have three specific components that protect employees at work when they are accused of any wrong doing. These rules are as follows:
  1. The employee must make a clear request for union representation before or during the interview. The employee cannot be punished for making that request;

  2. After the request the employer has three options: grant the request and delay questioning until the employee has representation which they can consult privately, deny the request and end the interview immediately, or give the employee a clear choice between having the interview with, or without, representation (I highly suggest to have representation); and

  3. If the employer continues questioning and denies the request, it becomes an unfair labor practice and the employee does not have to answer any of the questions. These rights are only good for employees that are under the umbrella of a union. If the union does not fulfill its fiduciary duties, the employee can seek outside legal counsel.

 
Published By
 
Above recap by John J. Pepi, Sr.
 
URL
 
N/A







 

Subscribe

 
Receive The Due Process Advocate in PDF format for FREE in your inbox!

FREE Subscription to The Due Process Advocate
 


Archive

 
An archive of all past editions of The Due Process Advocate is made available in PDF format for FREE:

Archive

 


About the Publisher

 

Edward H. Smith