IBM CEO Knowingly Endangers Lives -- Fires Whistleblower


"So we've got to be a company that people will want to
join. And once they do, they have to want to stay." "So
yes, we take our commitments to diversity -- and to a work place free
of discrimination and harassment – very seriously. As seriously
as our obligations to our customers and shareholders." -- Lou
Gerstner's remarks accepting the first Ron Brown Award for
Corporate Leadership at a White House ceremony with President
Clinton, February 1998. From the IBM Corporate Website.



According to a U.S. Federal lawsuit filed by an ex-IBM employee,
the IBM Corporation did, and is in fact still, knowingly placing the
lives of IBM employees and customers at their Tampa, Florida location
at direct risk of harassment, potential violence and possible death
from certain IBM employees known by IBM as already being hostile with
a documented history of past violence and harassment against other
employees. That history has at times included the use of loaded
handguns brought into the IBM Tampa workplace used as intimidation
and harassment of employees, the harassment of employees and their
spouses with the malicious intent to inflict emotional distress, as
well as acts of racial harassment and sexual harassment against
African-American employees, and all of which were allegedly known to
IBM HR, IBM Legal, and senior IBM managers, including past IBM CEO
Lou Gerstner.

Mark Cring, an 18 year veteran IBM employee, claims he was
illegally fired by IBM in retaliation for being a `Whistleblower'
just days after he pursued protection from the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), an act in itself protected
by Federal law from retaliation. Mr. Cring claims that several key
managers and senior officers, from Tampa manager Susan Grzybowski, HR
Senior VP Tom Bouchard, IGS Senior VP Doug Elix, and IBM CEO Lou
Gerstner were all made aware of the serious problems at Tampa, and
deliberately stonewalled or even falsified internal investigations in
order to protect guilty managers, and therefore willfully exposed
employees to continued incidents of harassment and violence,
including possible death. The alleged IBM HR internal investigation
initiated by Mr. Cring's internal complaints to CEO Lou Gerstner and
Senior IBM HR VP Tom Bouchard was only `completed' two weeks after
Mr. Cring's termination, despite being started almost 6 months
earlier by IBM HR. Per IBM guidelines, all investigations should
take no more than 30 days to complete, even though, presumably,
serious complaints of workplace violence, safety, or handguns should
be conducted in a more expeditious manner in order to prevent further
possible occurrences of serious workplace violence. Apparently
within IBM, serious workplace safety concerns do not translate into
an immediate need for investigation, resolution, or protection of
employees reporting such serious transgressions.

In his charges, Mr. Cring states that he, and other employees,
were routinely subjected to acts of malicious harassment with the
intent to inflict emotional distress, and threats of violence,
including death, by either manager Ronald Cascioli or subordinate new
hire Daniel Abrams, also known to be friends with Mr. Cascioli who
was hired by Mr. Cascioli through nepotism and cronyism. Mr.
Abrams' father also works for IBM and is friends with Mr.
Cascioli. Nepotism and cronyism is widely known to play a part in
the IBM hiring and promotion process, but, according to the charges,
has now been used as a means for allowing illegal harassment and
discrimination to continue unabated by the IBM Corporation against
other employees not friendly enough with senior management.

Allegedly, Mr. Cascioli is widely known for his violent temper
tantrums and his possession of loaded firearms in the IBM workplace,
where he has been known to display them to subordinates, and regale
employees of how he enjoys the aberrant use of those weapons whenever
he gets into fights. Mr. Cascioli also has a history known to IBM of
abusing his position in management to contact different
employee's spouses at home and intentionally harassing them to
the point of emotional distress, from attempting to breakup marriages
with false accusations of employee adultery, or falsely indicating
medical problems of employees, to allegedly threatening one
employee's wife with the death of their teenage daughter while
misrepresenting himself as a Florida State Highway Patrolman. Mr.
Cascioli has been allowed by IBM, HR, and IBM legal to excuse his
malicious intents to inflict emotional distress upon employees
as `jokes' as a response to the complaints lodged against him.

When Mr. Abrams, subordinate employee that was newly hired into
Mr. Cring's department, threatened Mr. Cring with physical
violence, Mr. Cring complained directly to his manager, Mr. Manny
O'Bryant, who was manager to both Mr. Cring and Mr. Abrams. Mr.
Cascioli was Mr. O'Bryant's manager. Allegedly, Mr.
O'Bryant excused Mr. Abrams continued hostile threats of violence
against Mr. Cring due to Mr. Cring's age, stating that Mr. Abrams has
`issues' with `baby-boomers' such as Mr. Cring, and therefore Mr.
Cring should just accept Mr. Abrams hostile behavior. Mr. O'Bryant
allegedly never instructed Mr. Abrams to cease such behavior against
employees, and specifically, Mr. Cring, thereby allowing such
behavior to continue unfettered. Supposedly, violence or threats of
violence, as well as the possession of firearms, are specifically
documented as being against IBM Business Conduct Guidelines,
regardless of reason or who was targeted, and are grounds for
immediate dismissal, but were for some reason knowingly tolerated by
IBM when directed against Mr. Cring for a period of some significant
time.

Allegedly, when Mr. Cring complained internally to IBM HR in
June 1999 about the blatantly hostile attitudes IBM now has towards
older workers to the point of becoming a physically and emotionally
dangerous work environment for those older workers, and cited senior
IBM management for corporate trends, such as the removal of
traditional IBM pension plans and associated medical benefits for
workers over 40 (which was later modified by IBM in response to a
pending IRS investigation) and the targeted removal of older workers
from the IBM workforce, and local management specifically, Mr.
Cascioli became enraged and immediately threatened to fire Mr. Cring
for his `attitude' problem. Mr. Cascioli further cited Mr.
Cring's `unreliability' as grounds for termination due to
Mr. Cring leaving on a pre-approved prescheduled vacation day. Other
employees, including Mr. Abrams, were allowed to leave early, arrive
late, or take unapproved breaks without notice and/or due cause, but
were not similarly threatened with termination.

Mr. Cring states that Mr. Cascioli's aberrant behavior and
tantrum forced him to contact Mr. Gerstner and Mr. Bouchard directly
with his complaints of pending violence as the local managers were
already either aware, or even condoned, Mr. Cascioli's harassment
or were simply unwillingly to be involved with their employee's
concerns, no matter how valid or serious. Mr. Cring states that the
IBM HR investigation was undertaken in direct response to that
complaint, and hence was undertaken in the name of and with the
authority of CEO Lou Gerstner in July 1999. Documents later obtained
by Mr. Cring do show that responses were made from Mr. Gerstner's
personal email userid concerning Mr. Cring's complaints. Mr. Cring
further claims that the investigation was premeditatedly biased
against him, and was further deliberately obstructed for the purposes
of discrediting his complaints, later known by IBM to be true, and
hence, justified. Mr. Cring further contends that IBM's willful
delay and refusal to mitigate employee concerns also deliberately and
knowingly placed all employees at direct risk of workplace violence
involving the possible use of handguns known to be present. That
deliberate refusal of IBM HR to protect their employees from
potential threats of violence increased Mr. Cring's distress over
the immediate impending actions without any recourse.

Mr. Cring states that he was actually berated and later
threatened by assigned IBM HR investigators Tracy Underwood and Kay
Scheuerman for requesting status updates weeks later and for
attempting to produce witnesses and additional evidence of workplace
harassment, including that undertaken against other employees, and
was reprimanded by them for `interfering' in the languishing
alleged investigation. Other harassed employees were told by Ms.
Underwood, supposedly working as an IBM HR contact, to go write their
problems on the IBM website and not to have any direct contact with
any managers or HR personnel regarding their concerns, while Mr.
Cring was told he was not to attempt any further contact with IBM HR
or his investigation, of now almost 3 months, would be dropped
without appeal or other recourse. Ms. Scheuerman allegedly refused
to further speak with Mr. Cring, or his witnesses, who was basically
told in effect to `go away' and not `bother' her. Documented IBM HR
guidelines states that any manager, or HR personnel, may be contacted
directly with workplace concerns, but this did not seem to prevent
assigned IBM HR investigators from deliberately shirking their
responsibilities or obligation to provide employees with a work
environment free from hostility. The implication that any such
supposedly serious investigation would be effortlessly dropped
without due attention is, of course, also directly implying that any
violence and harassment would be allowed to continue unabated,
although properly known to senior IBM managers and HR, including the
IBM CEO. If IBM HR personnel actually read and understood their own
documentation and procedures, then they did not apply any of them to
this serious situation. After waiting another three weeks and
enduring further harassment from Mr. Abrams, Mr. Cring sought outside
legal assistance and again informed Mr. Gerstner and Mr. Bouchard on
October 21, 1999, that he would be pursuing his concerns outside of
IBM. Ms. Scheuerman and Mr. O'Bryant were also notified of Mr.
Cring's intentions to pursue outside assistance.

On November 1, 1999, Mr. Cring's attorney sent certified
letters to Mr. Gerstner and Mr. Bouchard, the officers directly
responsible for initiating the IBM internal investigation, detailing
Mr. Cring's unsuccessful continued attempts at resolving the
situation within documented IBM guidelines, further claiming that IBM
HR has continually refused to properly investigate, or make any
reasonable effort to protect Mr. Cring from further instances of
harassment inviting future recurrences. IBM has acknowledged that
those communications were received, but never responded to.

According to Mr. Cring's claims, IBM HR investigators then
deliberately targeted Mr. Cring with termination from IBM, while
attempting to find allowable excuses for the harassment conducted
against Mr. Cring, and still forced him to remain a target for
further continued abuse after being intentionally and formally put on
notice by Mr. Cring. Mr. Cring requested a transfer earlier from IBM
HR as a means of protection, which is an acknowledged method of
diffusing potential situations as documented in IBM HR guidelines,
but was summarily denied. For some unknown reason, it was apparently
important for IBM HR to ensure that Mr. Cring remained in a knowingly
hostile work environment under continued immediate threat of extreme
violence, despite his continued requests for immediate protection or
resolution. Mr. Cring has gone on record as early as August 1998,
formally declaring to IBM that he would take any reasonable steps to
protect himself from further harassment or violent situations in the
IBM workplace. That notice, and similar notices afterwards, went
unheeded and ignored by IBM. Mr. Cring further states that since IBM
was duly warned, IBM either officially sanctioned or even
purposefully conspired to escalate harassment against him within the
workplace intentionally designed to inflict further distress.

When Mr. Abrams again allegedly threatened Mr. Cring in his own
office later in November 1999, Mr. Cring fled his office in a
reasonable attempt to avoid imminent physical violence. Witness
testimony has indicated that Mr. Abrams was willfully and
purposefully harassing Mr. Cring as a direct response to his EEOC
complaint as a means of `getting even with him' and did
actually invite other employees to participate in further harassment
against Mr. Cring for that specific reason. Mr. Cring was then
terminated by Mr. O'Bryant & Ms. Vicki Lawton, IBM HR manager, citing
Mr. Cring's `job abandonment', even though IBM internal
documents discovered by Mr. Cring in this lawsuit shows that Ms.
Lawton had already known of Mr. Cring's intent to proceed with formal
complaints against IBM, was aware of previous documented complaints
of violence by Mr. Abrams against Mr. Cring, complaints of further
harassment against Mr. Cring by Mr. Cascioli, the presence of
handguns within the IBM Tampa workplace by Mr. Cascioli, a currently
open and pending IBM HR internal investigation into Mr. Cring's
complaints now several months old, Mr. Cring's complaints against Mr.
O'Bryant for allowing such violence to continue and that Mr. Cring's
charges against Mr. Cascioli were indeed already corroborated by
independent witnesses.

Apparently, Ms. Lawton was more than eager and willing to rid
the IBM Corporation from an employee who had tried unsuccessfully for
several months to correct a blatantly illegal work environment.
Under such circumstances, any reasonable person would question Ms.
Lawton's motive for such an action, and whether anyone at IBM
actually has the intent to protect employees such as Mr. Cring from
any known serious potential threat of violence or harassment.

Allegedly, documents were made during late November and early
December 1999, after Mr. Cring's intentions to proceed onto the
EEOC were already known and documented to IBM, that Ms. Lawton and
others were indeed conspiring on how best to terminate Mr. Cring from
employment before his termination, thereby displaying a premeditated
motive of retaliation against Mr. Cring. Mr. Abrams, although known
to be the instigator in several instances of harassment, was not
similarly terminated. Mr. Cascioli also was not similarly terminated
for his willful creation of a hostile work environment, however, per
that IBM HR investigation started by Mr. Cring's complaints, he
was to be immediately removed from management as a direct result of
those complaints, but this information was deliberately withheld from
Mr. Cring while he was still employed by IBM. Mr. Cascioli chose to
leave IBM at the end of the very same month Mr. Cring was fired, on
December 31, 1999, the eve of Y2K. The IBM HR investigation report
obtained my Mr. Cring after his termination details how Mr. Cascioli
has allowed Mr. Abrams to conduct illegal racial harassment in the
workplace in front of Mr. Cascioli and with his approval to
continue. Allegedly, other employees have witnessed Mr. Abrams
fondling an African-American female in the workplace. That female
employee no longer is employed at IBM.

Ms. Lawton, having the knowledge of these facts, never attempted
to contact Mr. Cring, but was allegedly already composing excuses in
coordination with IBM legal on how to best terminate Mr. Cring's
employment, and further claimed that Mr. Cring was currently the only
employee coming forward with complaints. This allegedly implies that
since Mr. Cring was the only employee actively pursuing complaints
against IBM, the problems could be suppressed if there were no longer
active complaints lodged or outstanding. Documents further allegedly
reveal that alternate methods and/or reasons for Mr. Cring's
termination were being discussed, but no one discussed or promoted
the concept of actually protecting Mr. Cring from any further
harassment.

Despite the knowledge and confirmation by IBM that Mr. Cascioli
did indeed create a hostile work environment for employees and
customers, and is known to possess a loaded firearm on his person
within the IBM workplace, Mr. Cascioli was allowed by IBM to be
rehired in Tampa January 2001. IBM steadfastly refuses to rehire Mr.
Cring into any IBM location, which of course further implies that IBM
does not have a problem with acts of violence or harassment against
employees, or the possession of handguns in their workplace as much
as it does with anyone who `blows the whistle' on such illegal
activity to government authorities after they have been given
an inordinate amount of time to correct those problems internally.

Mr. Cring claims that since IBM has knowingly rehired a person
that IBM itself has already determined to have created a hostile work
environment with the potential of extreme violence and possesses
loaded firearms in the workplace, IBM is further willfully and
knowingly allowing current IBM employees and customers in Tampa to be
subjected to further incidents of workplace harassment or violence,
even to the point of death. Mr. Cring claims that `killing the
messenger' does not automatically resolve the issues that still
allegedly exist within the IBM Tampa workplace. Mr. Cring cites
further retaliation from IBM as they have steadfastly refused to
return personal property illegally siezed, reimburse Mr. Cring for
out of pocket business trip expenses, earned bonuses, and failure to
pay any severance, all of which are violations of applicable
employment laws, regardless of any reason for termination.

Both Mr. Elix and Mr. Gerstner, in addition to other managers
listed, have been identified as witnesses. The Court has already
denied IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment noting that there is
sufficient evidence of illegal activity to proceed onto trial by
jury. The case is currently waiting a schedule date for Jury Trial
in Tampa, which is expected shortly.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The statements detailed within this report are as reported to
IBM, including IBM HR and/or any agents identified by the IBM
Corporation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and/or
the U.S. Federal District Court, where the reference Case against the
IBM Corporation is currently awaiting a trial by jury. All persons
are presumed innocent until found guilty by a Court of Law. All
persons identified within this report will have the opportunity to
defend any charges or claims made against them in U.S. Federal Court
during that trial by jury.