To: Teletech Human Resources, Kalispell, MT

I am writing to dispute the allegations that led to my involuntary termination as of November 28th 2005.

My primary focus is the statement that Teletech maintains a "zero tolerance policy" concerning material that may be considered offensive.

My dispute is based on several verifiable instances of senior management engaging in planning, approving and implimenting events in the workplace, which clearly established a level of tolerance for potentially "offensive" material and behavior.

I also wish to point out several examples of ongoing long term displays of material that are or were, by nature of their longevity of display, clearly indicative of a level of "tolerance" that was approved by management far greater than "zero".

By virtue of these acts and displays, I believe that Teletech management clearly has established a tacit, if not explicit approval for the display of material and behavior that I was terminated for. I think a court of law would agree.

In November, 2005 Teletech management planned, approved and implimented "Survivor Day". During the promotion of the event, Teletech management specifically invited and encouraged female, ONLY female employees, to appear in the workplace wearing a "buff", (handkerchief), covering their breasts. Was there a work related reason for this event? Why were female employees encouraged to wear a "buff"? Did Teletech management think that no one might be offended by being forced to work with someone who actually wore a buff?

Previous to "Survivor Day", Teletech management planned, approved and implimented "Pajama Day". Employees were actively encouraged to wear clothing that would be appropriate for bed. I am a reasonably intelligent adult human, and I know that when someone dresses for bed, the result is often sexual activity. Did Teletech have some business reason for promoting a day that employees appear in the workplace dressed for bedsport? Did no one think that an employee that for whatever reason was not able to procure a bed partner might not be fearful of being forced to work with people who are dressed as if ready to engage in bedsport? Was there in fact some reason other than that of piquing some prurient interest for either of these events?

In October, Teletech management actively engaged in planning, approving and implimenting decorating the site with images, devices and banners depicting skeletons, ghosts, witches, devils and death. Did Teletech management not consider that an employee who lost a loved one recent to the decorating might be emotionally injured by seeing such displays celebrating death? Did no one consider that an employee may be offended by such a display. Was there no thought that an employee suffering such a recent loss might be fearful of returning to the workplace and being forced to work in such an environment?

I submit that these three examples of management approved and implimented events clearly establish a policy tolerance for displaying potentially "offensive" material and behavior far above that which I was terminated for.

In addition I am unwilling to allow Teletech management to stipulate unawareness of material openly displayed in the workplace. Such material has NO business purpose, is CLEARLY sexual in scope and discusses or displays matters of human sexual relations to such a degree as to make the display of my card in the workplace seem trivial and well within policy established by the longevity of display of these materials.

I submit that there are calendars, photographs, figurines and artworks displayed throughout the workplace clearly depicting humanoid females, posed and in such states of undress that leave no doubt that the display has no purpose other than that of prurient interest.

I submit that ##########, (a Manager), has (or has had for many months), displayed in her workspace artwork, depicting a humanoid female figure in such a state of undress that is undeniably outside of the published dress code for employees. Did I mention that I was involuntarily and summarily terminated because Teletech took a position of "ZERO TOLERANCE" for such material?

Throughout my term of employment I often noticed magazines such as "Cosmopolitan", "Allure", and "GQ" openly displayed, read, and discussed by employees and management. Such magazines clearly discuss and depict topics and images which are sexually graphic. Their continued presence in the workplace during my entire employment establishes a level of tolerance by management well above "ZERO" and well above any level tolerating my display of my card to another employee that clearly indicated a willingness to be exposed to such materials.

I was not made aware of the circumstances which led to my card being presented to management as "offensive" material. I have my own thoughts on the matter of what actions were taken prior to my awareness that management had acquired my card.

I am confused and dismayed that management would take this action against me against the backdrop of events and materials discussed in this letter.

I sincerely believe that neither my card nor my behavior violated policy established by Teletech staff and management. However if Teletech management insists that I did in fact violate policy, then I submit that each and every one of the managers that participated in planning, approving and implimenting events are equally guilty of such a violation.

I ask if any management would be willing to stand, under oath, in a courtroom and testify that they agree that my termination was equitable. I ask that my termination be reconsidered and reversed, loss of income restored and my position be returned to me.

Thank you,
Sincerely,

45 Mike Anderson