JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Sunday, March 16, 2025

BIR worker sues employer over ‘voodoo’ claims

by

31 days ago
20250213

nirat

Sascha Wil­son

Se­nior Re­porter

sascha.wil­son@guardian.co.tt

An em­ploy­ee of the Board of In­land Rev­enue (BIR) is su­ing her em­ploy­er, af­ter she was re­as­signed to an­oth­er de­part­ment af­ter be­ing ac­cused of prac­tis­ing “voodoo.”

Through her at­tor­ney Ki­ran Pan­day, Mindy Ra­moutar, a clerk typ­ist I and act­ing stenog­ra­ph­er II, sent a pre-ac­tion pro­to­col let­ter on Feb­ru­ary 10 to Com­mis­sion­er of In­land Rev­enue and chair­man of the board, De­o­mati Ram­dass.

Ac­cord­ing to the let­ter, in Sep­tem­ber 2024, Ra­moutar was gift­ed a cul­tur­al arte­fact by her col­league, who had re­turned from va­ca­tion in the Unit­ed States. She placed the arte­fact on her work desk, which she had full au­thor­i­ty to use.

Ra­moutar re­ceived a let­ter from the Hu­man Re­source De­part­ment (HR) on De­cem­ber 10, 2024, in­form­ing her that she was be­ing re­as­signed to the BIR’s Le­gal Unit.

Af­ter re­view­ing the let­ter, the at­tor­ney said, his client re­turned it to HR be­cause it failed to state the rea­sons for her re­as­sign­ment.

The pre-ac­tion pro­to­col let­ter stat­ed, “You in­di­cat­ed to her that she was in­volved in the prac­tice of “voodoo” and showed her a pic­ture of the arte­fact which was on your cel­lu­lar phone. My client in­formed you that the afore­men­tioned arte­fact was a gift from a col­league of BIR who had re­turned from New Or­leans and isn’t as­so­ci­at­ed with voodoo.”

He said Ra­moutar pro­ceed­ed on va­ca­tion leave on Jan­u­ary 6 as she “was suf­fer­ing from shock and em­bar­rass­ment due to your histri­on­ics” and the al­le­ga­tion made against her.

When Ra­moutar re­turned to work on Feb­ru­ary 3 she was de­nied ac­cess to the 22nd floor, where she per­forms her du­ties.

Even­tu­al­ly, a col­league al­lowed her in­side and in­formed her se­cu­ri­ty was ad­vised to re­strict her ac­cess, as she was no longer al­lowed on that floor.

Pan­day said Ra­moutar sent cor­re­spon­dence to Ram­dass re­quest­ing jus­ti­fi­ca­tion from the board about her re­as­sign­ment and Dan re­spond­ed, in­di­cat­ing she agreed with Ra­moutar seek­ing an ex­pla­na­tion.

He said Ram­dass’ cor­re­spon­dence stat­ed, “It is my opin­ion that the re­quest to have Ms Ra­moutar re­as­signed is in the best in­ter­est of the or­gan­i­sa­tion.

“I am sure that with Ms Ra­moutar’s knowl­edge in IRD’s func­tion­ing, she will be an as­set to the Le­gal Unit where she has been re­as­signed.”

Pan­day, in the let­ter, in­di­cat­ed that Ram­dass failed and/or ne­glect­ed to pro­vide his client with any jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for her de­ci­sion to re­as­sign her to the Le­gal Unit of the BIR.

“My client was vic­timised based on her be­ing ac­cused of prac­tic­ing ‘voodoo,’ which is com­plete­ly un­true as she is a de­vout Hin­du. Your ac­tions have caused my client to suf­fer feel­ings of em­bar­rass­ment, emo­tion­al and phys­i­cal dis­tress which have se­vere­ly af­fect­ed her pro­fes­sion­al and pri­vate life.”

He said Ra­moutar was de­sirous of re­turn­ing to her du­ties as an act­ing stenog­ra­ph­er.

Fail­ure to do so, he said, would re­sult in the fil­ing of High Court Pro­ceed­ings to com­pel her to do it. Ra­moutar is al­so re­quest­ing $1,500 com­pen­sa­tion for her le­gal costs. Ram­dass has 28 days to re­spond or face le­gal ac­tion.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored