War on Corruption, LLC

Editorial Notation:

Update: 09/09/2023

Sources have informed us that the woman, who had sexually harassed the man in this article, is allegedly doing the same to another man at this location. We would ask the question of “why,” but that answer is clear. The first time she conducted in this behavior, she was able to keep her job while the man, who made the report, was illegally terminated under false pretenses. The supervisors, who goes by ‘Bud,’ and his supervisor, Kelan, made their stance clear in this sort of situation: if you take this type of complaint to HR, you will be terminated. Meanwhile, the woman who continues her behavior remains completely safe from any consequences. The only question we can ask is simply, “how long will it be before this employer finds themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit?”

The following article is written based on information provided by the victim, witnesses, and phone recordings. We have also been made aware that another security officer, who had been sharing this very story to co-workers, was reportedly written up for doing so.

When making any form of complaint an employee should feel safe, regardless of their gender identities. The concept of being retaliated on simply for being a Male victim isn’t unheard of, this is especially true in sexual harassment cases. While we have been able to make contact with some current employees, the Citizens of Potawatomi Nation tribe has ignored all requests for contact. Regardless of their silence, we have chosen to move forward with this article because we have enough witness accounts, including the victim, to feel comfortable in publishing this information. It is important to note that we will not be revealing names. This is because of the retaliatory of the Firelake Grand Casino and its associated Tribe.

Events leading up to the claim

According to provided employment records, our victim began working for this Casino in early December of 2022. It would be around three weeks later that he would come into contact with a housekeeper, the individual of which the complaint would ultimately be filed against. According to both, witnesses and the victim, nothing appeared to be off. Overall, the conversations appeared to be normal and work friendly. This would not last very long, however.

The victim states that it began with her asking, “are you trying to flirt with me?” she allegedly followed up with, “people are telling me that shy guys tend talk to people they want to flirt with but are afraid of being rejected.” It was at this point, our victim informed the unknown woman that he was married. In most cases this would have been the end of the ordeal. In this instance, it appeared to be a challenge for the young woman. Following this conversation, we are told by witnesses and the victim, the conversations began to divert into the realm of ‘unprofessional.’

According to sources, initially the comments were in regard to the victim leaving his wife for her. As the weeks continued, so did her comments. According to one source, they had overheard her make a statement about how the victim’s wife was a piece of work. We spoke to our victim in regard to this. He confirmed that such a comment had been made shortly before he decided to file the report. he continued to inform us that the comments were so frequent he was beginning to despise going to work, contrary to him loving his job.

The complaint and aftermath

“She began asking about his location when he was off work,” according to a witness. This would prompt the first of two complaints. With the other security officer, he made the first complaint to the third shift supervisor. The response he got was, “Ignore it. Policy says we can’t tell her anything anyway.” The comments themselves were completely disregarded. By the following day, another inappropriate comment would be made. This time the victim took the complaint to their Human Resources department. What unfolded, as a result of this, is nothing short of illegal.

Upon learning of the second complaint, the third shift supervisor had the victim meet with him. He was informed that the young woman was to have no contact with him; she continued having contact regardless. He was then reprimanded for bringing their HR department into the situation. “Because of you, they’re watching everybody closely now. We now have attention that wasn’t needed and could have been avoided if you had just listened to me.” According to the victim, he was then lectured about having ‘thicker skin.’

The following weeks would consist of various forms of retaliation from two of his three supervisors. Whenever trying to speak with the supervisors, they responded with, “what do you want?” The victim states that this only began after the report went to HR. The retaliation did not cease with just hostile words. According to sources, mobile phones were permitted at their postings if the facility was closed. Regardless of this supervisor approved activity, our victim found himself on the receiving end of a write-up. The reason: using his mobile device while on post.

Two days following the write-up, would mark the end of the victim’s employment. On Friday, 24/04/2023, the victim would be suspended pending an investigation. As of the writing of this article, no explanation as to why this suspension, or the investigation, have ever been explained. The end result of the investigation was the victim’s termination. Our reference for the reason comes directly from the call’s recording.

Within the recording, the victim is informed that he would be terminated due to ‘threats’ he allegedly made. No individual that we have spoken to could substantiate what these threats were, including the victim. The victim is heard contesting the accusation, stating that he had not made any threats. There is silence for approximately thirty seconds before the victim states that they altered the meaning of something he told a co-worker. We contacted that co-worker who confirmed that no threat was made within the conversation. Regardless of this, the victim was terminated by this tribe.

Everything we have seen, everybody we have spoken to, have confirmed that the events we covered were not only unethical, but also illegal. The hostility from the supervisors, the write-up on approved activities, the termination after an investigation; none of this would have occurred if the sexual harassment report had not been filed. It is clear that this company, and the Tribe who owns it, retaliated against this individual. As the situation currently is, the victim has no legal course of action. This is purely due to the fact that it is nearly impossible to file a case against a tribal nation.

When a company advertises itself as being one that supports its employees, one would like to think that they actually mean it. However, this is very rarely the case, as one individual recently learned. The trucking company, Freymiller Inc., is one that often advertises itself as being a company that is “built by drivers, for drivers.” However, this doesn’t appear to be factual. We have covered this toxic industry in the past. From horrific abuses to not paying drivers, we’ve seen it all. What we haven’t seen, however, is a company that offers an autistic employee a “safe place” only to further trigger, and then terminate, them. What exactly happened? Let’s talk about it.

War on Corruption obtained a variety of documents and recordings from the former employee. According to the documents, his wife had been transported to a local hospital, where doctors didn’t offer much hope in her survival. The reason for this transport: epilepsy-related seizures. Not knowing whether or not his wife would survive, the employee was placed on “emergency medical leave,” and this will become very important shortly. While trying to make medical decisions and visiting his wife who was suffering from a condition known as Postictal psychosis, he was actively working with the company to get a local job. At this point, the company had not made it known that they intended to terminate him.

It is important to mention that this employee is on the autism spectrum. The company operates a group, to which they said he would be allowed to post. However, upon doing so, they responded to their own initial suggestion by banning him. According to the former employee, he was already triggered and felt at this point he was being targeted by the company. He proceeded to reach out to the company’s official Facebook, making the suggestion of autism training. Again, they responded by banning him, furthering his already existing triggers, proving the company was, in fact, targeting him.

Upon release of his wife from the hospital, he proceeded to go back to the company in the attempt to discuss a local job. “What they told me was that there were no open positions,” a statement we confirmed via an audio recording he had sent to us. What we do know is that Freymiller lied. How do we know this? This is an image sent to us from their very site, taken moments before the writing of this article.

Now, you recall that we mentioned his emergency medical leave would be important, correct? This is where that is going to apply. Upon telling the former employee that there were no open positions, they then proceeded to terminate him, all of being secretly captured on an audio recorder. They attribute his termination to the very condition that ultimately sent his wife to the hospital. At this point, there is no indication that he was released from this medical leave, though he did express that he would be returning from it. Essentially, he was illegally terminated from his job.

The meeting was conducted with an HR representative and an Operations manager, though the former employee states that he was trying to speak to the owner but was effectively barred from doing so. The two representatives, through this termination, had accomplished two things: the first is getting our attention so that we may spread awareness about companies like this. The second, effectively putting themselves into a potential legal situation. Currently, we are unclear as to what the former employee plans to do, though he has expressed an interest in filing a case against the company. Should this occur, we will update this article.