LIMA, OH – Just days after publishing a detailed article questioning attendance policies at a local temp agency, a Lima-based worker has been terminated from their assignment and from the agency entirely — a move they claim was retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights.
The worker, assigned through Staffmark to a position at Alpla, was previously penalized for a dental appointment they disclosed three days in advance — an incident documented in their first article titled “Temp Worker Penalized After Dentist Appointment Sparks Transparency Debate with Staffmark in Lima.” That article, which included legally recorded calls and direct quotes from Staffmark representatives, raised questions about unwritten attendance policies and verbal contradictions during onboarding.
Now, the worker says they’ve been fired entirely.
Voicemail and Termination Text
At 3:17 PM on August 15, 2025, the worker received a voicemail from a Staffmark representative stating:
“Due to the last couple of interactions, we’re going to move forward with your assignment. I do not think Staffmark will be a good fit, and you are terminated from Staffmark as well…”
Minutes later, a follow-up text confirmed the termination:
“Effective immediately, your assignment at Alpla and your employment with Staffmark have ended due to not being a good fit. Please do not report back to the site.”
This occurred one day after the worker called off work — sending a message explaining that they were exhausted and actively working on their story about agency practices. The message, sent around 3 hours after the scheduled shift start, emphasized respect and communication rather than a no-call/no-show.
Journalist or Worker — Or Both?
In a follow-up voicemail to the agency, the worker reaffirmed their identity as both an employee and an independent journalist:
“You fired me because I spoke up… This will be going on my story… People are not slaves. We’re not machines.”
They argue that had Staffmark not penalized them unfairly in the first place, they would not have taken the second day off or felt compelled to report publicly.
A Pattern of Retaliation?
The case raises concerns over whether temporary agencies can or should terminate workers for simply documenting and discussing their treatment. Ohio law permits one-party consent recordings, and no non-disparagement agreements were reportedly signed.
“I wasn’t threatening them. I just told the truth. They responded by firing me,” the worker said.
They believe the termination was not about job performance, but about control and image.
LimaVoices.com Plans to Continue Coverage
The worker says this second article will not be the last. They plan to publish continued reporting on agency practices, worker treatment, and transparency, and are inviting others to share their experiences anonymously.
“This isn’t a personal grudge. It’s about fairness, truth, and holding power accountable. If one person is punished for speaking up, others will stay silent. That’s what we’re changing.”
At the time of publication, Staffmark has not responded to requests for comment.
Editor’s Note
This article is part of LimaVoices.com’s series on labor conditions and staffing agency accountability in Allen County. If you have been mistreated by a staffing agency and want to tell your story, visit our feedback page at LimaVoices.com.