As a security contractor, I tracked, via recorded video, an employee of Hispanic heritage in two cases of possible "drug trafficking" or corporate IP theft from the company by which I was contracted. The employee, and his supervisor were both being monitored for suspected trafficking in drugs and/or other materials. The supervisor is a favorite of the out of state investors.
This is an At-Will state, the company contracting me is "owned" by out of state investors.
We then had a group meeting, during which the employee, and his supervisor, the security guard, and the Director of Operations, and HR Director all sat at the same table, with the events played out on a large video screen. My inquiry was polite, and couched in a pleasant inquiry process, to which both the employee and his supervisor laughingly denied all the evidence, which was clearly portrayed on the video screen.
Subsequently, the employee was captured on video violating the IT policy by using his personal cell phone on the factory floor to capture the image on a computer monitor not at his workstation, then seemingly cloning his work cell-phone and his personal cell phone. When asked about these actions, he became hostile and argumentative, accusing me of being a racist; when asked why he felt I was a racist, he replied that his supervisor told him I hated people of his ethnicity, and that I was out to get him because of that racism. [The factory staff consists of a majority of workers of the same ethnicity with whom I have cordial relations and with whom I chat in Spanish].
The supervisor again defended the employee.
Now, the employee, was fired not "for cause" but rather because his shift had been eliminated, and he has filed an EEOC complaint; the defense is provided by a local lawyer, with documentation provided by the out of state Investors'
The inference of the defense filing is that, if any portion of the EEOC complaint was valid, it is my fault.
In the defense document filed with the state AG, a number of key statements and documents [MFRs/Incident Reports/Videos] were omitted, to include the identity of persons who had witnessed each of my interactions with the fired employee. [I was not furnished a copy of the filing.]
It is evident the employee's supervisor [Investors' favorite], also under investigation for materials/IP theft, sabotage, and incompetence, provided the employee with the encouragement to file the EEOC complaint. The investors are also under federal review for other issues.
My question: If I am sued by the employee, and/or am brought before the EEOC hearing, do I have any recourse against the Investors' lawyer for malpractice based on Evidence Tampering or Spoiliation of Evidence.