4) BAE needs a top down change then too.

A fish starts stinking from the head first and its difficult to see this not being an accepted retaliation and instead an individual action.

If his past supervisor did indeed make those statements:

Sadly this happens all the time in gov and I would also imagine gov contractors also. When I first got my gov job, a supervisor had said, I would live to regret it if I was planning on quitting anytime in the near future.

he criticized the company for selling sniper scopes to Pakistan that he said were better than what U.S. soldiers got.

They are considered a ally and the US shouldnt be buying sub-par sniper scopes for our soldiers..

BAE- you are going to be toast in court!!!

Now, now, BAE says this Marine was wrong and maybe he is. The scopes could have been bought by a third party and passed on. Let the court decide the validity of his claims. We don't have the information to do it here.

Still, way bad press for BAE if even half of it's true.

No doubt this marine is spot-on regarding our supplying and funding that begger state!

And in the end, the BAE executives will get a nice fat tax break / "wealthy man's welfare check", courtesy of the GOP.

I hope they are toast in court, but sadly they will just pay him off to be silent.

I can just see the trial:

Dakota's lawyer: "What is that piece of jewelry you are wearing?"

Meyer: "That is not jewelry. That is the Medal of Honor."

Dakota's lawyer: "The Plaintiff rests".

Jury: "We, the jury, find in favor of the plaintiff, and award damages in the amount of freaking obscene."

Could be that BAE sold the American military what they ordered. Maybe the Pakistanis just ordered the better scope with the money our government gave them. Odds are BAE would have been happy to sell the more expensive scope to whoever had the money for it, and our military just ordered a scope that was less expensive than the "best". Bad choice. Not many Medal of Honor recipients around, especially live ones. We appreciate your service, and congratulations.

Across the board I think it is a disgrace the way we treat our ex-military.

This is the reason why it's a losing proposition to ever give recommendations. If you say the person is great and they turn out not to be, it comes back to haunt you. And if they were lousy and you say so, that can come back to haunt you as well. Why do it at all? At most places I've worked, we have a policy that if we get calls regarding a former employee, we can only tell them the dates they worked there, the position, and their salary when they left (and that's IT). Anything more is subjective and puts you at risk.

When a Medal on Honor recipient tells you something may be people should listen and know that there is nothing that will make that person NOT DO WHAT IS RIGHT. It is PRINCIPAL that this soldier has and we should all be grateful that the terrible things he has witnessed in war has made him wise beyond his years. His crap of an employer and even worse "supervisor" should be forced to see what it is like being UNEMPLOYED AND BLACK LISTED while looking for a job. Let him experience what it is like to be out in the cold with a accurate job resume explaining HE WILL DO ANYTHING EVEN LIE TO PROTECT HIMSELF AT THE DETREMENT OF HIS EMPLOYER!

Why do people feel the need to judge others, or other companies so quickly? As far as we know, this guy may have a serious drinking issue. I know that while in the service, almost all young soldiers drink, and often drink heavily. It is not a secret. I know I drank well more than my share, and there are very few 'checks' to prevent over indulgence. Then again, maybe the former manager who said he has issues was at fault. We have absolutely zero information to determine who is truthful. Maybe both, maybe neither. If Pakistan buys the top-grade stuff, while the US buys lower quality, is that the fault of BAE? Don't rush to judge. Sit back and let the process take place.

Oh come on, BAE is like the definition of the military industrial complex.

They'd sell to anyone anything for the right amount of money.

Eltex
Good point. I have managed all type of people in a production environment. This guy knows the type of scope an aliy uses?

Dakotas got some skills. Drinking is a blanket excuse for human resources to get rid of some one. My money is on this marine has is chit together as far as BAE industries has all ways been considered a bonus for the top EXcs And bones for the workers and management. I'm sure the updates to this scope were realized during the product development. BAE used development money to make a better scope that could be sold to the highest bidder. To bad that highest bidder uses American taxpayers money.....

Eltex and other defenders of BAE - in my 30+ years of management, I have never heard of any major company giving a bad feedback as to an ex-employee. Usually, they will tell you the dates of employment, and how the person left. They may provide positive statements, but never any negative. Any statements like 'drinking problem' or 'mentally unstable' requires a diagnosis, and I seriously doubt that any of his supervisors at BAE is qualified to provide it.

Therefore, it is rather clear that this is defamation. The question is whether it is sanctioned by the company (meaning intentional - making BAE culpable) or done by a stupid employee. I am sure that any competent lawyer can obtain a very large settlement for this hero. And if BAE is stupid enough to fight the suit, then they deserve to be raked over the coals and taken to the cleaners.

Wasn't it another military man who said "Beware of the military industrial complex ". More going on here than we know.

The issue regarding the scope is secondary. The main issue here is what the former supervisor said to the prospective new employer. Most companies have a policy that all calls requesting any information on a past employee be referred to HR. Managers are told in no uncertain terms that they are not to make any comments regarding the past employee. HR in most companies will do nothing more than confirm dates of employment, salary, and reason for leaving (i.e. fired, resigned, laid off, etc.) with no other details. This is to prevent suits just like this one. If this supervisor truly said the things he is being accused of then he violated company policy and likely committed slander (unless he has proof of his allegations, which is doubtful). The problem for the former marine will be getting the person at the prospective new employer to testify under oath as to what was said. Most people do not want to get involved in cases like this for fear of getting blacklisted themselves. If he can get the person to swear to the statements being made, then this former supervisor and BAE are both toast. Even if they could back up the statement about drinking I highly doubt they have any formal mental evaluation to back up the statement that the former marine is mentally unbalanced. Since the former supervisor is seen as being part of BAE, regardless of whether he violated company policy or not in making the statements, BAE is going to be on the hook for a major damage award. The former supervisor is likely going to find himself unemployed and basically unemployable since no company is going to want to hire a person who cost his former employer millions in this type of lawsuit.

“Odds are BAE would have been happy to sell the more expensive scope to whoever had the money for it, and our military just ordered a scope that was less expensive than the "best". “

If only that were true. Reality is that we have an arcane procurement system that is based on unyielding military specifications. The problem is these specifications are not updated as fast as technology is changing. The result is our military places orders for inferior product that cost more because it has to be made inferior by the OEM. Case in point, back in the late nighties I had a procurement puke from DC tell me I had to order 486 computers because that is what a specification called for. I was ordering PC’s for a personnel group that needed word processing and spreadsheets. No reason that the Pentiums of the day could not have been ordered. However because of some specification that had not be updated we were forced to buy 486 models that had to be custom built for us using old parts. They basically cost twice what the off the shelf models from Dell would have cost us. So we paid twice as much for half the performance.

Anyways I bet BAE is making scopes to a US specification that is inferior to the scopes they make for everyone else. I further would bet the inferior scopes cost more because something or some process has to be added to make them inferior.

Now if the supervisor trash talked a former employer that supervisor should be fired. However I do not hold BAE responsible for the action of one supervisor. So long as they took appropriate action against the offender they should only have to pay actual damages in the form of lost wages.

I will take the word of this young marine over any corporate executive or representative. All he needs do is show up with that medal around his neck. 'Nuf said! Ooorah! Semper Fi! BAE is a typical lying coniving blood sucking military industrial enterprise. How do you know they are lying? Their lips are moving. Whatever improves the bottom line is what they will do. No thought is ever given to propriety. By the way, the letter of the law is written to accomodate their business model. Pakistan has most favored trade status. Technology export laws, which I am shure they followed meticulously, support their profiteering. America, a nation of the best laws capitalists can buy!

Old Sarge et al,

You are focusing on Pakistan and equipment that BAE sold them when in fact that will have no part in the lawsuit at all. No laws were broken in the sale and it is immaterial to the defamation case brought by Sgt. Meyer. The facts in the case are simple. Sgt Meyer quit his job at BAE, and applied to work at another company. The prospective employer called his former supervisor at BAE and asked for a reference. His former supervisor made comments that Sgt Meyer feels defamed his character. So Sgt. Meyer is suing BAE for those comments. The sale of arms to Pakistan has nothing to do with the lawsuit and the reason he decided to quit is immaterial to the defamation case.

Should the supervisor be punished for his remarks? Yes. Should BAE be held responsible for the actions of their employee? Yes. What damages is Sgt Meyer entitled to? Lost wages caused by the defamation. There is zero evidence in this story that BAE as a company acted in anyway inappropriately. They will pay for the actions of their employee but it will not be a huge payday as it is unlikely he will get much it any punitive damages.

I hope this gets coverage on Ed, Rachel, and Morning Joe on MSNBC. I would love to see them follow up on this.

John is correct. This isn't about subpar weapons. The marine can at least prove that part if he has a copy of the dated letter. But retaliation for the letter is what this lawsuit is about.

WHat I don't get is why there was no comment from the previous employer on whether or not they received the info about his alleged drinking problem. They can say that he was an outstanding employee but they won't say why they didn't take him back! Maybe they've been summoned as witnesses and can't address it but that clarification should be included in the report. Bad writing, bad reporting! Stop half-a$$ing articles.

On an unrelated note...

@AG99 - Love, LOVE your profile pic! Alons-y Alonzo!!!!

Well, at least Pakistan is technically a US ally.

But yeah anybody with 3 brain cells knows they're double-dealing.

BAE is British, not American.

I would assume the main reason BAE is selling Pakistan a better sniper scope than we have is that our military bought a lot of very good scopes some years ago, we have a huge number of them, they are still in fine working order, our troops are trained on them, and they're still quite good scopes. Replacing them all at once would cost a fortune, for relatively little gain. Replacing just some would create new logistics and training problems, for even less gain.

A lot of nations have better sniper rifles than our forces use, and a few have snipers as good as ours, but no other nations have anywhere near the numbers of excellent snipers as the US. Some day in the future when the current scopes are wearing out and we're running out of spares, we'll replace all of them with an even better scope than what's being sold to Pakistan today, and have the best equipment in the world too. Until the following year when an even better model comes out and some third world country picks up a tiny handful of scopes better than what we bought the year before.

My brother has been to both wars Iraq & Afghanistan. He told me you don't know who to trust. They will be your friend in the daytime & kill you at night. He has been known to tell a few tales though. :)

Corporations that make weapons have no sense of morality. Corporations in general have no sense of morality. Their only objective is profit. That's what capitalism is about when left unchecked. That's why considering corporations as "individuals" is pure BS. The system being what it is, we cannot blame corporations for doing everything to improve their business: corruption, shady trades, etc. Anything that is not strictly illegal is OK. If we don't like it, we have to change the system.

Absolutely, truth seeker!

Bombing your allies and their civilians does tend to strain a friendship

BAE has American subsidiaries in order for it to sell to the US military and to handle top secret information.

Guess that makes me part of the 33% then. Perhaps I should start my own movement?

?

New Centurion, I agree they are a bunch of double crossing, no good *%&#@s. Anybody with 1/2 a brain knows they knew where Bin Laden was living. That's why they got so mad we didn't tell them ahead of time when we took him out. They couldn't warn him to leave. Their army border guards was shooting at NATO troops the other day. When we shot back and killed 24 of them they closed our supply routes to Afghanistan.

This is quite typical with some of these "friends", they'll take our billions in aid, but protest in the strongest and loudest possible way when we try to hold them to their end of whatever bargain was made (to get the billions in aid). This whole aid program culture needs to be re-examined, tighter controls and oversight, maybe be just a teensey bit more selective with who we open the coffers to.

The American public would be shocked to know that we the US Government work with many foreign countries which is why they have Foreign Military Sales Program Offices to handle those procurements. The names of those countries would surprise ALOT of folks.

BTW: Didn't this former Marine sign a non-disclosure agreement when he was hired by BAE? I ask because with his clearance and that non-disclosure agreement I dont know how he is allowed "legally" to discuss with anyone as to the specifications of any piece of equipment that is procured.

This guy would be a better Presidential candidate than all the Republican idiots put together.

Sgt. Meyer is most likely a Democrat; he has a spine and guts to stand up to stupidity.

You are right on track, Medal of Honor recipients get respect in every quarter, except the manufacturer of scopes that are selling them to our enemies... and yes... the Pakistani are our enemies...

You are right on track, Medal of Honor recipients get respect in every quarter, except the manufacturer of scopes that are selling them to our enemies... and yes... the Pakistani are our enemies...

It is against the law if this man signed a non-disclosure agreement with BAE when he worked there and when he signed his agreement with the Federal Government when he received his security clearance as a civilian.

There is nothing that says he disclosed anything. He is suing because BAE Slandered him after he was applying for another job, obviously departing BAE because he wouldn't 'KISS-KISS' their plans to sell the Pakistanis’ sniper scopes that would better help their buddies the al Qaeda to kill his brothers 'n sisters still in the military. Who disclosed what about why he left wasn’t made clear. Still it if is wrong as BAE clearly was in this case, Silence is NOT Golden!

Cleary he told someone why he left BAE since we all read that he left because of scopes being procured for Pakistan and that is a breech in the non-disclosure agreement he signed when he was hired.

He's got an open and shut case if he has witnesses or proof of what they said. He should be set for life.

actually, the open and shut case will be about the former supervisor stating Dakota has a drinking problem and that he's terribly unstable, which is easily refuted by his service record, and a simple medical test to look for signs of chronic alcohol abuse (which is likely to test false). The statement about selling better scopes to the Paki's while technically are our allies, they are most obviously playing the U.S. Gov't for fools as they protect the evil terrorists (and get way too offended when we catch them at it like when we located the most wanted man on the planet just yards form their highest military academy).

Teriffic idea! I will do the same. Thanks for a push in the right direction.

I hope you don't mind, but I copied the text of your letter and sent it to my congressman and US senators.

I just wrote my Senators and Congressman as well. I used your letter as a template. Thanks for providing it.

Everybody knows but them that they're our enemies...

BAE Systems is a multi-national company and, hence, not beholden to any government. They can sell what they want to whomever they want. The Global Economy.

I agree. More than likely he was an at will employee. Defamation? that's a high legal standard as I believe you need to show damages or some legal jargon. Chances are he was right about this company and the scopes, the fact is though the us defense industry is mainly a mercenary kill any one for a buck mentality. May they all rought in hell as well as the investors. Likely, though it won't be in this lifetime.

ok what eles is new, BAE this man is the medal of honor winner, yu lost allready . call the man a drunk are yu crazy. here is the top of the top. there is nothing yu all could say to bring him down. PAY UP NOW AN A FULL APOLIGY IS IN ORDER,