Phil Cannella Lawsuit – Phil Cannella Battles False Allegations

Phil Cannella Lawsuit: Phil Cannella stands firm in his mission to bring real financial solutions to the American retiree and those approaching retirement. It has not been an easy course to navigate and he has had to keep focused on his vision despite numerous attempts from some despicable individuals to take him off his course. Unfortunately the financial services industry is rife with those who act as parasites on a trillion dollar retirement industry. Yet Phil Cannella stands in contrast to that not trying to fleece the everyday investor, but offering solutions to protect the assets of seniors against market risk.

Phil Cannella Lawsuit: Phil Cannella’s success has put him into the spotlight and those envious of his success have tried to latch onto him much as a parasite might on its host. In the business world it is not uncommon for employees to take advantage of their employers by making false claims or exaggerating claims of discrimination or harassment. Businesses have to protect themselves against such attacks. But perhaps more importantly businesses have to eliminate harassment and discrimination in the workplace. These things do occur and where they do an employer is responsible for stamping it out and is putting him or herself in a vulnerable position if it is not effectively and rapidly dealt with.

Phil Cannella Lawsuit: Yet employers also have to protect themselves against false claims that no matter how ludicrous they may sound could be considered credible by investigating agencies responsible for monitoring and protecting employees against such activity. Phil Cannella was such a case. His success made others envious and one of his former employees sought to manipulate the system and extort money out of him for an imagined discrimination. This particular individual was protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act and he alleged that he was unduly harassed and discriminated against based on his age and disability.

Phil Cannella Lawsuit: The regulations on this are pretty clear: “The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or applicants with disabilities in all aspects of employment including hiring, pay, promotion, firing, and more. It also protects employees from retaliation when they enforce their rights under the law.”

“Private employers with at least 15 employees must follow the ADA. Many states have similar laws, which may apply to smaller employers too. Employers subject to the ADA cannot discriminate against a ‘qualified worker with a disability.’ Furthermore, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation for a worker with a disability as long as the accommodation won’t cause the employer undue hardship. The ADA specifies what counts as a disability, which workers are protected by the law, when accommodations are required, and what constitutes an undue hardship.”

“The ADA protects the following employees:

·          “An employee who has a disability. If an employee has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, he or she is protected.”

·         “An employee with a history of impairment. An employer can’t discriminate against an employee based on his or her previous disability.”

·         “An employee who the employer regards as disabled. This is true even if the employer is wrong, and the employee is not actually disabled. If the employer discriminates against an employee based on its incorrect belief that the employee has a disability, the employee is protected by the ADA.”

“A disability for purposes of the ADA is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. What constitutes a major life activity is broadly defined to include basic tasks (like walking, reading, bending, and communicating), as well as major bodily functions (such as functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions).”

“If an impairment doesn’t significantly limit a person’s ability to perform a major life activity, it isn’t a disability protected by the ADA. Temporary ailments also don’t count as disabilities. For more information on whether specific ailments are considered disabilities, visit the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) website at”

Shortly after this employee left Phil Cannella’s employ, on his own volition, he sought to rewrite history and retell the story of his leaving based on imaginary events that did not in fact occur but certainly sounded plausible if one had not personally witnessed the events in question. To defend himself Phil Cannella not only had to present the facts of the matter to the Unemployment Office first but then to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission who were investigating the charges.

The problems that people have who deal with untruths and fabrications is that the evidence on hand usually doesn’t back up or support their allegations and accordingly their testimony ends up with holes in it which just don’t hold water. Truths can be backed up with evidence. Truth is hard to dissolve. Lies can be entertaining, and can easily become the subject of rumors that spread very fast. But lies can be disproven with well-documented facts.

Phil Cannella had taken care of this employee during times of adversity and hardship and made all sorts of allowances for him. When his accusations of discrimination and harassment came in, they hurt and they wounded Phil’s desire to help. Fortunately Phil Cannella had documented all he had done for this employee and when the government agencies investigated the charges it was fairly evident to see where the allegations had holes.

After an exhaustive and costly investigation the claims against Phil Cannella were dismissed in their entirety and he was absolved of any and all wrongdoing.