I am a California attorney and not eligible to give legal advice in your state. My comments are for information only, based on federal law and general legal principles. YOUR STATE MAY HAVE ITS OWN LAWS THAT PROVIDE SIMILAR OR GREATER PROTECTION. If I refer to your state's laws, that only means I did a quick Internet search and found something that appeared relevant. You should not rely on any comment I make regarding your state's law. You MUST check with an attorney licensed in your state.
Start with the understanding that employees have very few rights in the workplace. The law provides employers with tremendous leeway in running their businesses just as they want. Please look at my Avvo guide to at-will employment which may help you understand your rights now and in the future: http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/an-overview-of-at-will-employment-all-states.
Since the law allows employers to do what they want -- generally -- you have to figure out what makes things different for you, as compared to the two other employees. Perhaps they are getting better treatment because they've known the boss for years and are friends. That's a lawful reason to prefer some employees over others, although there may be employment policies at work that preferential treatment violates. Or perhaps they are the same religion as the boss and you are not. This would be an unlawful reason to prefer employees over others. Maybe the other employees are getting good treatment because they are female and you are getting worse treatment because you are male (are you male or female?). This would be sex discrimination, and unlawful.
There are so many possibilities for the different treatment that I would exceed the space limit here if I tried to address even a fraction of them. You are in a much better position that anyone here on Avvo to consider what might really be going on. My guide to workplace discrimination might help you figure it out (along with the other guide which I linked to above): http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/what-is-unlawful-employment-discrimination--federal-law?published=true which should help you understand lawful and unlawful discrimination.
I hope you can resolve your situation and I wish you the best.
*** All legal actions have time limits, called statutes of limitation. If you miss the deadline for filing your claim, you will lose the opportunity to pursue your case. Please consult with an experienced employment attorney as soon as possible to better preserve your rights. *** Marilynn Mika Spencer provides information on Avvo as a service to the public, primarily when general information may be of assistance. Avvo is not an appropriate forum for an in-depth response or a detailed analysis. These comments are for information only and should not be considered legal advice. Legal advice must pertain to specific, detailed facts. No attorney-client relationship is created based on this information exchange. *** Marilynn Mika Spencer is licensed to practice law before all state and federal courts in California, and can appear before administrative agencies throughout the country. She is eligible to represent clients in other states on a pro hac vice basis. ***Ask a similar question
Ms. Spencer gives you good advice. You suggest that you are being treated unfairly, and that may well be the case. The problem is that unfairness is a fact of life in the world of employment. There are very few situations in which unfairness in employment has a remedy other than looking for other employment.
Unfairness in hiring or in training becomes actionable only when it violates a written employment agreement or constitutes unlawful discrimination or retaliation. By "unlawful discrimination," I am referring to being treated unfavorably due to such factors as sex, pregnancy, age, disability, national origin, color, creed, race, or religion.
If an employer favors one applicant over another, that by itself will not be suggestive of discrimination.
Good luck to you.
Michael S. Haber is a New York attorney. As such, his responses to posted inquiries, such as the one above, are limited to his understanding of law in the jurisdiction in which he practices and not to any other jurisdiction. In addition, no response to any posted inquiry should be deemed to constitute legal advice, nor to constitute the existence of an attorney/client or other contractual or fiduciary relationship, inasmuch as rendering legal advice involves the ability of the attorney to ask appropriate questions of the person seeking such advice and to thus gather appropriate information. In addition, an attorney/client relationship is formed only by specific agreement. The purpose of this answer is to provide the questioner with general information, not to outline specific legal rights and remedies.Ask a similar question