Do you work for the government or for a private enterprise? Are you represented by a union?
Kimmy_Gibbler - No, Yes, No
Carry a small digital recorder with you at work and anytime you are engaged in conversation simply record the interaction. Of course in order for it to be legal you’ll need to check local laws on recording conversations without the other party knowing you are doing it. Some states you can use it as evidence, other states you can’t.
All you asked is “what can I do?”. You don’t post any information about the nature of your unfair treatment so it sounds to me like your choices are going to be either go to your boss or HR and discuss it or hire a lawyer. If there were more details someone may be able to provide a much better answer. Personally, I’m betting you’re just not the person they want working there. Or perhaps you’re not being discriminated against and you’re just oversensitive or whiny.
As a non-union employee of a private enterprise, unless an agreement to the contrary is in place, you are almost certainly an at-will employee who may be terminated for good cause or no cause. That is to say, unless the poor treatment is due to your real or perceived status as a member of a protected class or is the result of facially-neutral policies that disproportionately burden members of a protected class, your only redress is to start looking at the want ads.
NOLA Cajun
We are hourly employees. Overtime is a big part of the work. My hours were off last year by around 800 from the year before. My overtime has virtually stopped. There are several other things that go on. that lead me to believe I am being treated prejudicially.
And?
I assume your problem is that others are getting more hours than you are. If so, why do you think this is the case? What is the basis of this perceived discrimination?
Okay, so we know what the nature of your complaint is. Now, why are you being denied overtime hours?
Is it because you are the wrong race? Wrong religion? Wrong sex? Too old, or too young? If so, you might have a cause of action under your state’s anti-discrimination statutes.
Or is it because you are not qualified for the tasks that attract overtime? Is it because the employee who does get overtime is the boss’s relative? Is it because you got drunk and made a fool of yourself at the annual office picnic? If so, you might not have a cause of action under your state’s anti-discrimination statutes.
I’m not sure I see a constructive dismissal here, even under the broad definition that Canadjun linked to. (And Canadjun, you might be interested to know that we use a much narrower definition of constructive dismissal here in Canada; the same might apply in the OP’s case.) At any rate, OP, I will agree that there is no harm in writing down incidents as you experience them, and keeping these records on file if you need them later.
Disclaimer: IAAL, but I am not a lawyer in your jurisdiction, nor are you my client. For legal advice specific to your situation, consult a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.
You may want to read up on unlawful discrimination based on prohibited policies and practices, as defined by the EEOC. If your alleged unlawful discrimination has a basis in those areas defined by various laws, you need to seriously consider hiring a lawyer. Contacting your state’s EO office or equivalent, or the EEOC, should be a priority.
Many people claim “discrimination” yet the law doesn’t see it as unlawful. It may be discrimination to a reasonable person, but is it unlawful discrimination? There is a difference. At the same time, it may not be unlawful discrimination but an unfair labor practice. It’s possible to be discriminated against, and not be unlawful discrimination nor an unfair labor practice. It’s been my experience that many people scream “discrimination!” yet the actual perceived issue does not meet the legal requirements for unlawful discrimination nor an unfair labor practice.
I suggest you spend considerable time reading the EEOC web siteand familiarize yourself with what really is unlawful discrimination and possible retaliation based on unlawful discrimination as defined by the law. You may want to read up on the NLRB web site.
Have you simply just asked someone why you aren’t being offered overtime? I don’t see how that could be confrontational by just asking why. The economy isn’t that great and I’ve seen overtime at lots of peoples jobs diminish. Could just be economics. Or it could be that they simply wish you’d just take a hint and go away.
Either way, sounds like a hard case to win on your part. You can have my job. I hate it and I’m moving to Colorado soon anyway.
As was suggested by a brilliant and insightful, although unacknowledged, poster in post #9.
It does not hurt to repeat a point, especially when the OP appears to not have done their homework.
Yeah, especially when the person who originally offered the advice is one of those people who can’t be trusted. 
This is actually a good—and too often overlooked—point, as it is unlawful, under the National Labor Relations Act, to retaliate against an employee exercising his or her rights under the Act. See, e.g., Edward G. Budd Mfg. v. N.L.R.B., 138 F.2d 86 (3d Cir. 1943)* However, insofar as concerted activities by NLRA-covered employees for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection are not implicated here (so far as I know), the NLRA does not seem to apply.
A chestnut of American labor law:
The case of Walter Weigand is extraordinary. If ever a workman deserved summary discharge it was he. He was under the influence of liquor while on duty. He came to work when he chose and he left the plant and his shift as he pleased. In fact, a foreman on one occasion was agreeably surprised to find Weigand at work and commented upon it. Weigand amiably stated that he was enjoying it.[SUP]6[/SUP] He brought a woman (apparently generally known as the “Duchess”) to the rear of the plant yard and introduced some of the employees to her. He took another employee to visit her and when this man got too drunk to be able to go home, punched his time-card for him and put him on the table in the representatives’ meeting room in the plant in order to sleep off his intoxication. Weigand’s immediate superiors demanded again and again that he be discharged, but each time higher officials intervened on Weigand’s behalf because as was naively stated he was “a representative.” In return for not working at the job for which he was hired, the petitioner gave him full pay and on five separate occasions raised his wages. One of these raises was general; that is to say, Weigand profited by a general wage increase throughout the plant, but the other four raises were given Weigand at times when other employees in the plant did not receive wage increases.
[SUP]6[/SUP] Weigand stated that he was carried on the payroll as a “rigger”. He was asked what was a rigger. He replied: “I don’t know; I am not a rigger.”
The Court then recounted how Weigand was observed talking to a labor organizer for the Congress of Industrial Organizations (the CIO) and was fired the next day. It concluded by making the following findings:
As this court stated in National Labor Relations Board v. Condenser Corp., supra, 3 Cir., 128 F.2d at page 75, an employer may discharge an employee for a good reason, a poor reason or no reason at all so long as the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act are not violated. It is, of course, a violation to discharge an employee because he has engaged in activities on behalf of a union. Conversely an employer may retain an employee for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all and the reason is not a concern of the Board. But it is certainly too great a strain on our credulity to assert, as does the petitioner, that Weigand was discharged for an accumulation of offenses. We think that he was discharged because his work on behalf of the CIO had become known to the plant manager. That ended his sinecure at the Budd plant. The Board found that he was discharged because of his activities on behalf of the union. The record shows that the Board’s finding was based on sufficient evidence.
The order of the Board [requiring Weigand’s reinstatement] will be enforced.
The best thing is for me to sit down face to face with a professional lawyer, and find out what to do. I have read the cites that were suggested. I want to thank everyone who particapated, hopefuly this will get resolved soon.
I am not sure what the proper thing is to do ,shoiuld I request a Moderator close this thread, or move it?
Leave it open; perhaps other posters may have ideas that you would want to ask your employer and/or your lawyer about.
Will you keep us updated with the matter as you discuss it with your lawyer and as it progresses?