This Isn’t a Legal Finding — It’s HR Wordsmithing

I’ve re-read the denial letter from the New York State Department of Labor several times now - not because I’m unsure of what it says, but because of what it doesn’t say.

Let’s be clear:

The letter doesn’t say I wasn’t retaliated against.

It doesn’t say I wasn’t harassed.

It doesn’t say my claims were false.

Here’s the exact wording again:

 “You quit due to dissatisfaction with the actions of your employer.”

 “Although you state you were forced to resign, the available information shows that your separation from employment was voluntary and you have not shown that you had a compelling reason for resigning.”

Let that sink in. They didn’t refute a single fact. They just dismissed it all as "dissatisfaction," like I quit because someone stole my parking spot or I didn’t like the lunch menu.

That isn’t an investigation. That’s a "rebranding".

Let’s be honest - the language in that denial doesn’t read like something a legal analyst wrote after reviewing evidence. It reads like "damage control" straight out of an HR handbook.

“Dissatisfaction with the actions of your employer.” Sounds a lot like something that someone in HR might write, doesn’t it?

They didn’t say, “You weren’t retaliated against.”

They didn’t say, “No misconduct occurred.”

They just sidestepped all of it by painting me as someone who left over “feelings.”

That’s not impartial. That’s a deliberate framing strategy - and it’s probably pulled word-for-word from whatever the employer submitted. The judge in my appeal and my attorney will see right through it. So will anyone else watching closely.

You'd think a company facing claims this serious would at least try to deny it. But they didn't. Because they can't. 

And now everyone knows it.

Stay tuned. Much more to come.

-- K