Hook, Line, and Liability: Ball's Suspected Fishing ExpeditionCoordinated "whistleblower" emails, implausible claims, retaliatory pivots, and gag orders now tied to PHRC liability
By: DHI Wire With PHRC jurisdiction now confirmed, Ball Corporation and its named managers face dual liability under federal and Pennsylvania law. This includes potential personal liability for individuals who permitted or enabled discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against Mr. Drost. Against that backdrop, the company's recent "whistleblower" On the same day DHI Wire released its latest report on Ball Corporation Pittston Pa, two "whistleblower" Striking Stylistic Similarities
Forensic Interpretation: Implausible Claims Raised
Fear Without Proof Each writer leaned heavily on fear of retaliation and job loss as justification for anonymity. Yet they ignored offers for in‑person meetings with Mr. Drost. Metadata was cloaked behind VPNs or disposable accounts, further eroding credibility. Suspicious "Evidence" Screenshots mirrored the embellished claims but lacked substance. The reporting platform appeared to be a generic HTML mock‑up, with vague terms like "your organization" Baiter #1 and Baiter #2
Both collapsed into blocky, defensive text when pressed. Same style, same fingerprints — either one and the same, or closely coordinated. Withdrawal and Collapse Two days later, Baiter #1 resurfaced, asking us not to publish the claims. The reversal suggested panic once Baiter #2 was compromised. Retaliation Disguised as "Investigation" Immediately after the bait attempt collapsed, Ball management shifted to calling Mr. Drost "under investigation." Insider Notice: Leave and Gag Order On Monday, December 15th, Ball Corporation informed internal staff that Mr. Drost was "on leave" and that procedures were in place — one day after attempting to enforce a gag order against him. Ball's directive to Mr. Drost: do not to speak publicly about the leave with anyone. Yet with him not present onsite, the company itself disclosed exactly that information to the internal crew. The contradiction is glaring: Ball tried to silence a whistleblower while simultaneously broadcasting the very detail they claimed he could not share. Mr. Drost is under no legal obligation to obey a gag order, and Ball Corporation has no legal authority to silence a whistleblower or an individual speaking publicly about their own federal case. Overheard: Taylor Ellison's Boast Mere hours after Baiter #1 emailed and minutes after Baiter #2 initiated contact, Plant Manager Taylor Ellison was overheard saying: "I just couldn't believe it, I was laughing, I took a screenshot of it, he's out there destroying my reputation and here he's doing this!" "Oh I know, it's been a week, I have been dealing with meetings over this." Ellison then went quiet, likely waiting for a reply. Moments later, he followed up with laughter and added: "Thank you, I learned from the best!" The timing of this exchange suggests coordination and awareness at the local management level. Red Flags Everywhere
Leadership Allegations Ball Corporation's leadership — including CEO Ron Lewis, CFO Daniel J. Rabbitt, and Senior Vice President & President of North and Central America Kathleen Pitre — are alleged to have permitted or enabled discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against Mr. Drost. The investigation has identified managers who were repeatedly notified of misconduct and compliance failures yet allowed them to continue. These include Hannah Lim‑Johnson (Chief Legal Officer), Melissa Benson (Director, HR Operations – NCA), Larissa Morris (Regional HR Manager), Christopher Grimley (VP NCA), Gene Bosic (Global VP NCA), Colleen McNee (Pittston HR Manager), and Taylor Ellison (Plant Manager). Final Note On December 14th, one day after Baiter #2 was exposed, Mr. Drost received a voicemail from the Plant Manager — a development directly tied to this suspected fishing attempt. More to come. Closing Coherent Thoughts Whomever crafted these emails underestimated the discipline of a veteran trained in forensic communications. They cast their line, but the bait smelled funny from the start — more like inadmissible hearsay than fresh catch. Instead of reeling in a whistleblower, they hooked themselves into a net of retaliation, bad‑faith fabrication, and PHRC liability. In court, this kind of stunt isn't bait, it's Exhibit A. Anyone interested in seeing the suspected baiting emails in full is encouraged to visit: https://www.mediafire.com/ All claims described herein are allegations under investigation and have not yet been adjudicated Photos: https://www.prlog.org/ https://www.prlog.org/ https://www.prlog.org/ End
|
