tmmac, thank you for post #767, the youtube links for Danielle's case presented by Chris Hanson on his CWD msm program.
God bless ERN, the light in the Th***r/Cl****s family, coming forward as she is. ERN is honorable.
Have Floyd's in-laws antagonistic to ERN reevaluated their actions, what with holding licenses for positions of trust--security service, first responder, inspector, real estate, fundraiser, ...?
Security service providers face a known challenge to the protection of a client's employees: fraternization. The Securitas employee handbook states rules to prevent foreseeable acts of harm--with one like this--fraternization with client's employees is prohibited. It's common sense that Securitas' duty to provide reliable security services to MetLife and other clients must be safeguarded against compromise. We can assume that FRGjr attended antifraternization training because Securitas' liability insurance coverage depends on prevention of harm. So, who protects the client's employees when the Securitas security guard abandons procedure?
FRGjr's behavior, showing up at Danielle's cubicle, can be characterized as fraternization, or worse. Let's look at it as fraternization. As soon as he began flamboyantly seeking attention from Danielle, Floyd stepped out of compliance with Securitas policy. Floyd's noncompliance caused an unsafe environment for MetLife employees. An easy cure for fraternization is reassignment. Did Securitas reassign Floyd to another facility in October of 2016 or, separate employment?
However, I suggest that Floyd's behavior is false faced. He went beyond fraternization because Floyd acted the ruse of smooth harmless uniformed guard in order to disarm Danielle. Floyd exploited his security guard status to show up at Danielle's cubicle and he wasn't performing any prescribed Securitas duty. Floyd repeatedly disturbed Danielle at her work station. Floyd stalked Danielle, (MCL 750.411h).
