#workplaceretaliation — Public Fediverse posts

Statement from the Founder – 11 June 2026

After several more exchanges with LinkedIn staff over the past few weeks, I am relieved to say that I have finally regained access to my account. However, the process that led to this outcome has raised serious concerns for me regarding transparency, consistency, and accountability.

Following a number of conflicting interactions with LinkedIn support, I temporarily regained access to my account, only to have it restricted again. I was informed by a LinkedIn Trust and Consumer Support Consultant, “Ramesh S”, that my account had violated the LinekdIn User Agreement and Professional Community Policies.

No explanation was provided as to what specific policies I had allegedly violated, what conduct gave rise to the restriction, or what evidence supported the decision. I repeatedly had to push for additional information.

I also submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) under UK GDPR seeking information relating to my account and the decisions made regarding it. To date, I have not received any acknowledgement or response, which is concerning given LinkedIn’s obligations under data protection law.

Meanwhile, another LinkedIn representative, “Nayana”, informed me that there were alleged inconsistencies between my profile and my proof of identity.

The representative then requested that I provide another form of government-issued ID in addition to the passport I had already submitted. When I explained that my passport is the strongest form of identification I possess, I was instructed to print and sign a form before a Notary Public or Public Official.

I repeatedly questioned why such a requirement was necessary and pointed out how disproportionate it seemed. Nevertheless, I was informed that LinkedIn would maintain its original decision and that my account would remain restricted.

At the same time, another employee, “Anjali”, informed me that my identity had in fact been verified, but that LinkedIn had identified what they claimed was a second account belonging to me, constituting misuse of the platform.

The account in question bore an entirely different name, “Akanke Adebiyi”, had no profile photo, no connections and no activity. I had never seen the profile before in my life.

I made it clear that only my own profile belonged to me and asked how it had been concluded that an account under a completely different name belonged to me.

This created a bizarre situation in which one LinkedIn employee was insisting that I obtain notarized documents to prove my identity, while another had already confirmed my identity and was sending me password reset links.

Unfortunately, those links repeatedly failed to work despite being used within the validity period and across multiple devices. It was not until Wednesday morning (June 10th 2026) that I was finally able to successfully reset my password and regain access to my account.

I subsequently asked LinkedIn to confirm that the “Akanke Adebiyi” account had not used any of my personal information during registration and to explain why it had been attributed to me.

In response, Anjali stated:

“We sincerely apologize for any confusion caused earlier. Upon reviewing your account, we would like to confirm that the information shared previously was incorrect due to an internal error.

Please be assured that you have only one LinkedIn account, and it is currently active. We also see that you have successfully logged in to your account.

We regret any inconvenience this may have caused and appreciate your patience while we looked into this for you.”

I appreciate that I have finally been able to access my account again and I am genuinely relieved that this issue has, at least for now, been resolved.

However, I remain deeply concerned by the lack of transparency surrounding the original restriction, the contradictory information I received from different members of staff, the extraordinary request that I seek notarization despite having already provided a passport, and the fact that my Subject Access Request appears to have gone unanswered.

Mistakes happen. But when a platform plays such an important role in people’s professional lives, clear explanations, consistency and accountability matter.

The absence of these things only creates confusion and undermines trust. Given the wider circumstances of covert repression I am experiencing, it is hard not to assume the connection between these extremely bizarre events.

I hope LinkedIn will still respond to my SAR and provide some clarity regarding the events that led to this experience.

Thank you for your patience with me if you have tried to contact me. Going forward, I would advise trying to reach me via email or WhatsApp if you need to contact me, in case something like this happens again. If any other disruptions to my ability to communicate take place, I will aim to disclose that as soon as it becomes clear that it will not be resolved quickly. As I mentioned in a previous statement, as of March 10th, I do not have access to my longstanding UK phone line, which was disconnected by O2 under similarly bizarre circumstances.

— Nikki Adebiyi
Founder, Bounce Black

Statement from the Founder – 11 June 2026

After several more exchanges with LinkedIn staff over the past few weeks, I am relieved to say that I have finally regained access to my account. However, the process that led to this outcome has raised serious concerns for me regarding transparency, consistency, and accountability.

Following a number of conflicting interactions with LinkedIn support, I temporarily regained access to my account, only to have it restricted again. I was informed by a LinkedIn Trust and Consumer Support Consultant, “Ramesh S”, that my account had violated the LinekdIn User Agreement and Professional Community Policies.

No explanation was provided as to what specific policies I had allegedly violated, what conduct gave rise to the restriction, or what evidence supported the decision. I repeatedly had to push for additional information.

I also submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) under UK GDPR seeking information relating to my account and the decisions made regarding it. To date, I have not received any acknowledgement or response, which is concerning given LinkedIn’s obligations under data protection law.

Meanwhile, another LinkedIn representative, “Nayana”, informed me that there were alleged inconsistencies between my profile and my proof of identity.

The representative then requested that I provide another form of government-issued ID in addition to the passport I had already submitted. When I explained that my passport is the strongest form of identification I possess, I was instructed to print and sign a form before a Notary Public or Public Official.

I repeatedly questioned why such a requirement was necessary and pointed out how disproportionate it seemed. Nevertheless, I was informed that LinkedIn would maintain its original decision and that my account would remain restricted.

At the same time, another employee, “Anjali”, informed me that my identity had in fact been verified, but that LinkedIn had identified what they claimed was a second account belonging to me, constituting misuse of the platform.

The account in question bore an entirely different name, “Akanke Adebiyi”, had no profile photo, no connections and no activity. I had never seen the profile before in my life.

I made it clear that only my own profile belonged to me and asked how it had been concluded that an account under a completely different name belonged to me.

This created a bizarre situation in which one LinkedIn employee was insisting that I obtain notarized documents to prove my identity, while another had already confirmed my identity and was sending me password reset links.

Unfortunately, those links repeatedly failed to work despite being used within the validity period and across multiple devices. It was not until Wednesday morning (June 10th 2026) that I was finally able to successfully reset my password and regain access to my account.

I subsequently asked LinkedIn to confirm that the “Akanke Adebiyi” account had not used any of my personal information during registration and to explain why it had been attributed to me.

In response, Anjali stated:

“We sincerely apologize for any confusion caused earlier. Upon reviewing your account, we would like to confirm that the information shared previously was incorrect due to an internal error.

Please be assured that you have only one LinkedIn account, and it is currently active. We also see that you have successfully logged in to your account.

We regret any inconvenience this may have caused and appreciate your patience while we looked into this for you.”

I appreciate that I have finally been able to access my account again and I am genuinely relieved that this issue has, at least for now, been resolved.

However, I remain deeply concerned by the lack of transparency surrounding the original restriction, the contradictory information I received from different members of staff, the extraordinary request that I seek notarization despite having already provided a passport, and the fact that my Subject Access Request appears to have gone unanswered.

Mistakes happen. But when a platform plays such an important role in people’s professional lives, clear explanations, consistency and accountability matter.

The absence of these things only creates confusion and undermines trust. Given the wider circumstances of covert repression I am experiencing, it is hard not to assume the connection between these extremely bizarre events.

I hope LinkedIn will still respond to my SAR and provide some clarity regarding the events that led to this experience.

Thank you for your patience with me if you have tried to contact me. Going forward, I would advise trying to reach me via email or WhatsApp if you need to contact me, in case something like this happens again. If any other disruptions to my ability to communicate take place, I will aim to disclose that as soon as it becomes clear that it will not be resolved quickly. As I mentioned in a previous statement, as of March 10th, I do not have access to my longstanding UK phone line, which was disconnected by O2 under similarly bizarre circumstances.

— Nikki Adebiyi
Founder, Bounce Black

Statement from the Founder – 11 June 2026

After several more exchanges with LinkedIn staff over the past few weeks, I am relieved to say that I have finally regained access to my account. However, the process that led to this outcome has raised serious concerns for me regarding transparency, consistency, and accountability.

Following a number of conflicting interactions with LinkedIn support, I temporarily regained access to my account, only to have it restricted again. I was informed by a LinkedIn Trust and Consumer Support Consultant, “Ramesh S”, that my account had violated the LinekdIn User Agreement and Professional Community Policies.

No explanation was provided as to what specific policies I had allegedly violated, what conduct gave rise to the restriction, or what evidence supported the decision. I repeatedly had to push for additional information.

I also submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) under UK GDPR seeking information relating to my account and the decisions made regarding it. To date, I have not received any acknowledgement or response, which is concerning given LinkedIn’s obligations under data protection law.

Meanwhile, another LinkedIn representative, “Nayana”, informed me that there were alleged inconsistencies between my profile and my proof of identity.

The representative then requested that I provide another form of government-issued ID in addition to the passport I had already submitted. When I explained that my passport is the strongest form of identification I possess, I was instructed to print and sign a form before a Notary Public or Public Official.

I repeatedly questioned why such a requirement was necessary and pointed out how disproportionate it seemed. Nevertheless, I was informed that LinkedIn would maintain its original decision and that my account would remain restricted.

At the same time, another employee, “Anjali”, informed me that my identity had in fact been verified, but that LinkedIn had identified what they claimed was a second account belonging to me, constituting misuse of the platform.

The account in question bore an entirely different name, “Akanke Adebiyi”, had no profile photo, no connections and no activity. I had never seen the profile before in my life.

I made it clear that only my own profile belonged to me and asked how it had been concluded that an account under a completely different name belonged to me.

This created a bizarre situation in which one LinkedIn employee was insisting that I obtain notarized documents to prove my identity, while another had already confirmed my identity and was sending me password reset links.

Unfortunately, those links repeatedly failed to work despite being used within the validity period and across multiple devices. It was not until Wednesday morning (June 10th 2026) that I was finally able to successfully reset my password and regain access to my account.

I subsequently asked LinkedIn to confirm that the “Akanke Adebiyi” account had not used any of my personal information during registration and to explain why it had been attributed to me.

In response, Anjali stated:

“We sincerely apologize for any confusion caused earlier. Upon reviewing your account, we would like to confirm that the information shared previously was incorrect due to an internal error.

Please be assured that you have only one LinkedIn account, and it is currently active. We also see that you have successfully logged in to your account.

We regret any inconvenience this may have caused and appreciate your patience while we looked into this for you.”

I appreciate that I have finally been able to access my account again and I am genuinely relieved that this issue has, at least for now, been resolved.

However, I remain deeply concerned by the lack of transparency surrounding the original restriction, the contradictory information I received from different members of staff, the extraordinary request that I seek notarization despite having already provided a passport, and the fact that my Subject Access Request appears to have gone unanswered.

Mistakes happen. But when a platform plays such an important role in people’s professional lives, clear explanations, consistency and accountability matter.

The absence of these things only creates confusion and undermines trust. Given the wider circumstances of covert repression I am experiencing, it is hard not to assume the connection between these extremely bizarre events.

I hope LinkedIn will still respond to my SAR and provide some clarity regarding the events that led to this experience.

Thank you for your patience with me if you have tried to contact me. Going forward, I would advise trying to reach me via email or WhatsApp if you need to contact me, in case something like this happens again. If any other disruptions to my ability to communicate take place, I will aim to disclose that as soon as it becomes clear that it will not be resolved quickly. As I mentioned in a previous statement, as of March 10th, I do not have access to my longstanding UK phone line, which was disconnected by O2 under similarly bizarre circumstances.

— Nikki Adebiyi
Founder, Bounce Black

Statement from the Founder – 11 June 2026

After several more exchanges with LinkedIn staff over the past few weeks, I am relieved to say that I have finally regained access to my account. However, the process that led to this outcome has raised serious concerns for me regarding transparency, consistency, and accountability.

Following a number of conflicting interactions with LinkedIn support, I temporarily regained access to my account, only to have it restricted again. I was informed by a LinkedIn Trust and Consumer Support Consultant, “Ramesh S”, that my account had violated the LinekdIn User Agreement and Professional Community Policies.

No explanation was provided as to what specific policies I had allegedly violated, what conduct gave rise to the restriction, or what evidence supported the decision. I repeatedly had to push for additional information.

I also submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) under UK GDPR seeking information relating to my account and the decisions made regarding it. To date, I have not received any acknowledgement or response, which is concerning given LinkedIn’s obligations under data protection law.

Meanwhile, another LinkedIn representative, “Nayana”, informed me that there were alleged inconsistencies between my profile and my proof of identity.

The representative then requested that I provide another form of government-issued ID in addition to the passport I had already submitted. When I explained that my passport is the strongest form of identification I possess, I was instructed to print and sign a form before a Notary Public or Public Official.

I repeatedly questioned why such a requirement was necessary and pointed out how disproportionate it seemed. Nevertheless, I was informed that LinkedIn would maintain its original decision and that my account would remain restricted.

At the same time, another employee, “Anjali”, informed me that my identity had in fact been verified, but that LinkedIn had identified what they claimed was a second account belonging to me, constituting misuse of the platform.

The account in question bore an entirely different name, “Akanke Adebiyi”, had no profile photo, no connections and no activity. I had never seen the profile before in my life.

I made it clear that only my own profile belonged to me and asked how it had been concluded that an account under a completely different name belonged to me.

This created a bizarre situation in which one LinkedIn employee was insisting that I obtain notarized documents to prove my identity, while another had already confirmed my identity and was sending me password reset links.

Unfortunately, those links repeatedly failed to work despite being used within the validity period and across multiple devices. It was not until Wednesday morning (June 10th 2026) that I was finally able to successfully reset my password and regain access to my account.

I subsequently asked LinkedIn to confirm that the “Akanke Adebiyi” account had not used any of my personal information during registration and to explain why it had been attributed to me.

In response, Anjali stated:

“We sincerely apologize for any confusion caused earlier. Upon reviewing your account, we would like to confirm that the information shared previously was incorrect due to an internal error.

Please be assured that you have only one LinkedIn account, and it is currently active. We also see that you have successfully logged in to your account.

We regret any inconvenience this may have caused and appreciate your patience while we looked into this for you.”

I appreciate that I have finally been able to access my account again and I am genuinely relieved that this issue has, at least for now, been resolved.

However, I remain deeply concerned by the lack of transparency surrounding the original restriction, the contradictory information I received from different members of staff, the extraordinary request that I seek notarization despite having already provided a passport, and the fact that my Subject Access Request appears to have gone unanswered.

Mistakes happen. But when a platform plays such an important role in people’s professional lives, clear explanations, consistency and accountability matter.

The absence of these things only creates confusion and undermines trust. Given the wider circumstances of covert repression I am experiencing, it is hard not to assume the connection between these extremely bizarre events.

I hope LinkedIn will still respond to my SAR and provide some clarity regarding the events that led to this experience.

Thank you for your patience with me if you have tried to contact me. Going forward, I would advise trying to reach me via email or WhatsApp if you need to contact me, in case something like this happens again. If any other disruptions to my ability to communicate take place, I will aim to disclose that as soon as it becomes clear that it will not be resolved quickly. As I mentioned in a previous statement, as of March 10th, I do not have access to my longstanding UK phone line, which was disconnected by O2 under similarly bizarre circumstances.

— Nikki Adebiyi
Founder, Bounce Black

Statement from the Founder – 11 June 2026

After several more exchanges with LinkedIn staff over the past few weeks, I am relieved to say that I have finally regained access to my account. However, the process that led to this outcome has raised serious concerns for me regarding transparency, consistency, and accountability.

Following a number of conflicting interactions with LinkedIn support, I temporarily regained access to my account, only to have it restricted again. I was informed by a LinkedIn Trust and Consumer Support Consultant, “Ramesh S”, that my account had violated the LinekdIn User Agreement and Professional Community Policies.

No explanation was provided as to what specific policies I had allegedly violated, what conduct gave rise to the restriction, or what evidence supported the decision. I repeatedly had to push for additional information.

I also submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) under UK GDPR seeking information relating to my account and the decisions made regarding it. To date, I have not received any acknowledgement or response, which is concerning given LinkedIn’s obligations under data protection law.

Meanwhile, another LinkedIn representative, “Nayana”, informed me that there were alleged inconsistencies between my profile and my proof of identity.

The representative then requested that I provide another form of government-issued ID in addition to the passport I had already submitted. When I explained that my passport is the strongest form of identification I possess, I was instructed to print and sign a form before a Notary Public or Public Official.

I repeatedly questioned why such a requirement was necessary and pointed out how disproportionate it seemed. Nevertheless, I was informed that LinkedIn would maintain its original decision and that my account would remain restricted.

At the same time, another employee, “Anjali”, informed me that my identity had in fact been verified, but that LinkedIn had identified what they claimed was a second account belonging to me, constituting misuse of the platform.

The account in question bore an entirely different name, “Akanke Adebiyi”, had no profile photo, no connections and no activity. I had never seen the profile before in my life.

I made it clear that only my own profile belonged to me and asked how it had been concluded that an account under a completely different name belonged to me.

This created a bizarre situation in which one LinkedIn employee was insisting that I obtain notarized documents to prove my identity, while another had already confirmed my identity and was sending me password reset links.

Unfortunately, those links repeatedly failed to work despite being used within the validity period and across multiple devices. It was not until Wednesday morning (June 10th 2026) that I was finally able to successfully reset my password and regain access to my account.

I subsequently asked LinkedIn to confirm that the “Akanke Adebiyi” account had not used any of my personal information during registration and to explain why it had been attributed to me.

In response, Anjali stated:

“We sincerely apologize for any confusion caused earlier. Upon reviewing your account, we would like to confirm that the information shared previously was incorrect due to an internal error.

Please be assured that you have only one LinkedIn account, and it is currently active. We also see that you have successfully logged in to your account.

We regret any inconvenience this may have caused and appreciate your patience while we looked into this for you.”

I appreciate that I have finally been able to access my account again and I am genuinely relieved that this issue has, at least for now, been resolved.

However, I remain deeply concerned by the lack of transparency surrounding the original restriction, the contradictory information I received from different members of staff, the extraordinary request that I seek notarization despite having already provided a passport, and the fact that my Subject Access Request appears to have gone unanswered.

Mistakes happen. But when a platform plays such an important role in people’s professional lives, clear explanations, consistency and accountability matter.

The absence of these things only creates confusion and undermines trust. Given the wider circumstances of covert repression I am experiencing, it is hard not to assume the connection between these extremely bizarre events.

I hope LinkedIn will still respond to my SAR and provide some clarity regarding the events that led to this experience.

Thank you for your patience with me if you have tried to contact me. Going forward, I would advise trying to reach me via email or WhatsApp if you need to contact me, in case something like this happens again. If any other disruptions to my ability to communicate take place, I will aim to disclose that as soon as it becomes clear that it will not be resolved quickly. As I mentioned in a previous statement, as of March 10th, I do not have access to my longstanding UK phone line, which was disconnected by O2 under similarly bizarre circumstances.

— Nikki Adebiyi
Founder, Bounce Black

FORMER EXECUTIVE SUES MRBEAST VENTURES OVER HARASSMENT CLAIMS, ALLEGES RETALIATION

A former executive is suing MrBeast's company, Beast Industries, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation after maternity leave. Find out what she claims happened.

#MrBeastLawsuit, #SexualHarassment, #WorkplaceRetaliation, #BeastIndustries, #MaternityLeave

https://newsletter.tf/executive-sues-mrbeast-company-harassment/

A former executive is suing MrBeast's company, Beast Industries, for sexual harassment and retaliation. She claims she was subjected to inappropriate comments and fired after her maternity leave.

#MrBeastLawsuit, #SexualHarassment, #WorkplaceRetaliation, #BeastIndustries, #MaternityLeave
https://newsletter.tf/executive-sues-mrbeast-company-harassment/

Workplace retaliation in Los Angeles tech firms can be subtle but legally significant.

Employees who report issues may face exclusion, demotion, or sudden scrutiny. California law provides strong protections, but success depends on documentation and timing.

#EmploymentLaw #WorkplaceRetaliation #LosAngeles #TechIndustry

Retaliation does not have to be dramatic to be illegal.

Healthcare workers in Pico-Robertson may experience subtle changes like reduced shifts, exclusion, or increased scrutiny after speaking up.

These patterns matter under California law.

#WorkplaceRetaliation #CaliforniaLaw #EmployeeRights #HealthcareWorkers #LegalHelp

Even executives at major firms can face wrongful termination or retaliation. California law offers strong protections, but documentation and timing are critical.

#WrongfulTermination #EmploymentLaw #ExecutiveRights #CaliforniaLaw #WorkplaceRetaliation #Whistleblower

Retaliation in influencer marketing and digital media workplaces often appears as exclusion, reduced hours, or sudden criticism rather than termination. California employees are protected under FEHA, Labor Code 1102.5, FMLA, and ADA.

#WorkplaceRetaliation #EmployeeRights #CaliforniaLaw #FairfaxDistrict #EmploymentLaw #FEHA #Whistleblower #FMLA

Employees in Culver City media companies, including Sony Pictures, may still pursue retaliation claims under California law even if they are unionized.

FEHA provides powerful protections when you report discrimination or harassment. Documentation is key.

#WorkplaceRetaliation #SonyPictures #CulverCity #EmploymentLaw #FEHA #CaliforniaLaw #EmployeeRights

Pregnancy leave violations continue to affect employees in Downtown Los Angeles finance institutions. Workers report reduced bonuses, stalled promotions, and retaliation after maternity leave. Federal and California laws provide protections against pregnancy discrimination, but enforcement often requires documentation and legal action.

#PregnancyDiscrimination #MaternityLeaveRights #LosAngelesEmploymentLaw #EmployeeRights #WorkplaceRetaliation #WomenInFinance #CaliforniaEmploymentLaw

https://www.europesays.com/ie/377064/ Former Sanford surgical oncologist alleges retaliation after she raised patient safety concerns – InForum #DrSabhaGanai #Éire #FederalLawsuit #Health #HealthCare #Healthcare #IE #Ireland #SanfordHealth #WorkplaceRetaliation

Pregnancy discrimination still affects workers in West Hollywood salons and fitness studios. Employees may face denied accommodations or retaliation after pregnancy disclosure. California law protects pregnant workers.

#PregnancyDiscrimination #WestHollywood #CaliforniaEmploymentLaw #EmployeeRights #WorkplaceRetaliation

Retaliation claims among Century City executives are rising as senior professionals speak up about misconduct. California law under FEHA and Labor Code 1102.5 protects protected activity from adverse action. Timing, documentation, and pattern evidence are critical. #WorkplaceRetaliation #CenturyCity #ExecutiveRights #CaliforniaEmploymentLaw #WhistleblowerProtection

Violinist Claims He Was Fired After Reporting Scary Vegas Hotel Intrusion on Will Smith Tour

Brian King Joseph is a professional violinist who performed on Will Smith's 2025 "Based on a True Story" tour. In March, while the tour stopped in Las Vegas, Joseph says he experienced a frightening intrusion in his hotel room. He reported the incident to hotel security, tour management, and local police....

#celebritysafety #Lawsuit #tourcontroversy #violinist #willsmith #workplaceretaliation

Violinist Claims He Was Fired After Reporting Scary Vegas Hotel Intrusion on Will Smith Tour

Brian King Joseph is a professional violinist who performed on Will Smith's 2025 "Based on a True Story" tour. In March, while the tour stopped in Las Vegas, Joseph says he experienced a frightening intrusion in his hotel room. He reported the incident to hotel security, tour management, and local police....

#celebritysafety #Lawsuit #tourcontroversy #violinist #willsmith #workplaceretaliation

Violinist Claims He Was Fired After Reporting Scary Vegas Hotel Intrusion on Will Smith Tour

Brian King Joseph is a professional violinist who performed on Will Smith's 2025 "Based on a True Story" tour. In March, while the tour stopped in Las Vegas, Joseph says he experienced a frightening intrusion in his hotel room. He reported the incident to hotel security, tour management, and local police....

#celebritysafety #Lawsuit #tourcontroversy #violinist #willsmith #workplaceretaliation

Atmos Energy faces lawsuit as veteran manager claims age bias https://www.byteseu.com/1451279/ #AgeDiscrimination #AtmosEnergy #Energy #WorkplaceRetaliation