RE: You're Fired!!!

RE: You're Fired!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

laurell3 -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 11:24:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight We were 'sure' because this wasn't an at-will firing, this was a firing while being given the reason straight-out that it was because of who you voted for. No other reason given. Huh? At-will means that termination can be made for ANY reason or NO reason at all, except for reasons narrowly defined by law. And we already know that in most states political affiliation is not a protected reason. Therefore it clearly was an at-will firing. Except, AGAIN, that is not really true for "at-will" employees at all depending on the jurisdiction and the recognized exceptions. Discrimination is not the only basis for a lawsuit.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 11:29:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight We were 'sure' because this wasn't an at-will firing, this was a firing while being given the reason straight-out that it was because of who you voted for. No other reason given. Huh? At-will means that termination can be made for ANY reason or NO reason at all, except for reasons narrowly defined by law. And we already know that in most states political affiliation is not a protected reason. Therefore it clearly was an at-will firing. Except, AGAIN, that is not really true for "at-will" employees at all depending on the jurisdiction and the recognized exceptions. Discrimination is not the only basis for a lawsuit. What other basis is there for an EMPLOYMENT based lawsuit, other than discrimination?

laurell3 -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 11:32:33 AM)
Read the posts above.

TreasureKY -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 11:36:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight We were 'sure' because this wasn't an at-will firing, this was a firing while being given the reason straight-out that it was because of who you voted for. No other reason given. Huh? At-will means that termination can be made for ANY reason or NO reason at all, except for reasons narrowly defined by law. And we already know that in most states political affiliation is not a protected reason. Therefore it clearly was an at-will firing. Except, AGAIN, that is not really true for "at-will" employees at all depending on the jurisdiction and the recognized exceptions. Discrimination is not the only basis for a lawsuit. What you don't seem to be understanding... the nuance that isn't so much a nuance as it is the point... is that we aren't talking about civil lawsuits. We're talking about what is legal and what is not. Any friggin idiot can file a civil suit for anything he deems is "wrong". Just because someone can prevail in a situation that he believes "wrong", it doesn't make it illegal.

laurell3 -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 11:48:03 AM)
For the third and final time. There are two different things here. Stop responding with your ego and engage your brain. There is a federal statute that prohibits anyone interferring with another person's right to vote. It criminalizes those actions. Arguably it applies to the ridiculous situation as put forth. THAT MAKES THE ACTION ILLEGAL! There is also the question of the employment issue and a civil suit. It's not a question of "legal" or "illegal" it is a question of violation of a contract, in the case of "at will" employees, an implied contract. The very lawsuit that you cited indicates that yes, in fact, the public policy exception to that doctrine can be applied in that case. Now, if you unwad your panties, you will see that in my posts, I did IN FACT distinguish and yes, you are not getting it or you wouldn't continually post the same ridiculous attacks indicating that you do.

laurell3 -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 11:49:50 AM)
Actually the statute that Jeff quoted IS West Virginia's indication that they do in fact have an interest in exercising the public policy doctrine with regard to at will employees. Wilbur, you also do not GET IT.

laurell3 -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 11:58:32 AM)
omg boy on boy could really make this nightmare thread worthwhile!

slvemike4u -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 11:59:03 AM)
Too damm slow......it sucks being a slow white guy,what with all of the discrimination directed at me and my brethren [8\|]

laurell3 -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 12:01:17 PM)
You can make up for that with the boy on boy!

LadyPact -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 12:10:29 PM)
OK. Now you have My attention. LOL. As to public policy exception, again, you're going back to what you can prove. Generally, he said/she said doesn't work for this. Legal, rather than civil. That's a lot harder. Also, any case is going to be a lot harder to win due to lack of precedent. For the record here, I'm not saying that this situation is morally right. You'd be amazed at the things people can be fired for. There's also a lot to be said for the actual reason, rather than what a person is given for the "real" reason.

TreasureKY -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 12:12:08 PM)
I've acknowledged several times that civil recourse is, of course, possible. However, the point of my initial post and every subsequent one is that there is no universal Law making it illegal to use how a person votes as a measure for making hiring or firing decisions. Why you've jumped in with the possibility of civil recourse, only you know. All I can tell you is that I've never said that it couldn't be challenged in a civil suit. That's a horse of a different color. quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 There is a federal statute that prohibits anyone interferring with another person's right to vote. It criminalizes those actions. Arguably it applies to the ridiculous situation as put forth. THAT MAKES THE ACTION ILLEGAL! And I believe that I clearly stated that, ARGUABLY, the citation that you posted might not be found to be applicable to this case. Whether it would be found to be illegal would be up to the Department of Justice, and so far, I've yet to find any case precedence for this. I can understand your frustration, but you can keep your insults and attacks, thank you.

domiguy -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 12:19:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact OK. Now you have My attention. LOL. As to public policy exception, again, you're going back to what you can prove. Generally, he said/she said doesn't work for this. Legal, rather than civil. That's a lot harder. Also, any case is going to be a lot harder to win due to lack of precedent. For the record here, I'm not saying that this situation is morally right. You'd be amazed at the things people can be fired for. There's also a lot to be said for the actual reason, rather than what a person is given for the "real" reason. Hello Lady P, You are getting a little off track. The question isn't if you can make up or fabricate a reason for firing someone. The statement the op put forth is: "It is perfectly legal for private sector employers to fire or discriminate against any employee they like for any reason they like, just as long as they do not do so based on any Federally protected classes." In this case, is it legal to fire someone who voted for Obama? I think it has been shown by definition that it is in fact illegal. Now if you want to start a thread about employers that will utilize other means to get rid of an unwanted employee, you will have my 100% support.

laurell3 -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 12:20:34 PM)
haha I saw you lurking above and knew the boy on boy would get you! I don't understand your question though. There isn't likely to be something on point that's easily citable. I would also like to read the w.v. cases on the issue or similar issues, I'm not paying for it though. The public policy exception on the civil issue isn't going to be a statute or something readily cited, it comes from the common law. I do agree that a lack of precedent makes it a bit more difficult, however, if judges actually do their job instead of being lazy, it shouldn't be. With regard to legality and criminal penalties: the federal criminal statute is here: Section 11 (b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as amended 43 U.S.C. Section 1971(b) provides: No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate. West Virginia also has a similar state statute with regard to corporations cited in the other thread also making said actions criminal and subject to fine for corporations. Morally right or wrong is never really the issue when it comes to legal questions, although it certainly makes some bullshit law. I know you guys (meaning everyone, not LP) all want things neat and pretty and quoted exactly, but the law doesn't work that way most of the time (outside of criminal cases where due process and notice apply).

realwhiteknight -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 12:25:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 omg boy on boy could really make this nightmare thread worthwhile! eeeeew... [:-] not for me. I am strictly boy on girl, anything else creeps me out. I'm a prude, what can I say?[;)]

laurell3 -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 12:27:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY I've acknowledged several times that civil recourse is, of course, possible. However, the point of my initial post and every subsequent one is that there is no universal Law making it illegal to use how a person votes as a measure for making hiring or firing decisions. Why you've jumped in with the possibility of civil recourse, only you know. All I can tell you is that I've never said that it couldn't be challenged in a civil suit. That's a horse of a different color. quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 There is a federal statute that prohibits anyone interferring with another person's right to vote. It criminalizes those actions. Arguably it applies to the ridiculous situation as put forth. THAT MAKES THE ACTION ILLEGAL! And I believe that I clearly stated that, ARGUABLY, the citation that you posted might not be found to be applicable to this case. Whether it would be found to be illegal would be up to the Department of Justice, and so far, I've yet to find any case precedence for this. I can understand your frustration, but you can keep your insults and attacks, thank you. As is often the case in life, we get what we give. It's difficult to give it and whine when it's returned. Arguably ANY statute might not be applicable IN ANY CASE. That's why attorneys have jobs. That argument is absolutely intellectually dishonest. You asked is it illegal, it is. Side sliding into some bullshit well maybe I'm still right theory doesn't change the fact that there are several statutes making the actions illegal. While you may be the OP, you're not the only one discussing here. Throwing a fit when other people's questions and comments are discussed is rarely considered an intelligent form of communication here.

TreasureKY -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 1:06:39 PM)
Suit yourself and engage on whatever level you'd like. Personally, I find it childish. quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 Arguably ANY statute might not be applicable IN ANY CASE. That's why attorneys have jobs. That argument is absolutely intellectually dishonest. You asked is it illegal, it is. Side sliding into some bullshit well maybe I'm still right theory doesn't change the fact that there are several statutes making the actions illegal. Actually, I didn't ask. My op clearly stated that. You decided to slide in with the civil suit angle and discussing the possibility of prevailing with public policy. As for the Voting Rights Act, I was simply being polite and giving you the benefit of the doubt. You'd obviously done a lot of Googling to support Jefff's assertion and it was a good try.

domiguy -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 1:17:28 PM)
No, it is not that at all.....Please refer to what was posted. Refute this if you care to proceed. Section 11 (b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as amended 43 U.S.C. Section 1971(b) provides: No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate. off shoot on the topic at hand, I know that in many states at one time a person could be fired for their sexual orientation...it is an ever changing landscape as more and more states are now protecting these employees. However, although the person might be able to fire someone for voting the "wrong way" they would definitely be found guilty of intimidating a person to vote in a particular fashion. Thereby making it illegal. If you cannot argue these points then please acknowledge it and move on. quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY Whether it would be found to be illegal would be up to the Department of Justice, and so far, I've yet to find any case precedence for this. This was not the question you asked in your opening statement. But it does appear that the 1965 Voting Rights Act would make this conduct illegal. I am just as much as a legal expert as you. The language does seem to prohibit the conduct as suggested in your opening statement.

DomKen -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 1:17:50 PM)
Actually you cannot be terminated for voting for someone. It would fall under wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

BeingChewsie -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 1:29:06 PM)
quote: You asked is it illegal, it is. I don't think the firing of person would be illegal. I think that person would be shit out of luck, but I believe and my attorney spouse believe the other employees would have a cause of action under the federal law cited above. They could argue that the employment environment is coercive/hostile based on the firing of that person for how they voted. Courts take the right to vote very seriously. I don't think any company that has decent legal counsel would want to go near firing someone based on who they voted for. It just opens an ugly can of worms and the damages the other employees might be able to claim make that whole scenario from a smart business standpoint a non-starter. Why go there when there are so many other avenues for termination of employees that don't put you or your company at any risk? Never mind the person you canned what about the x number of employees who now feel "threatened, coerced and intimidated" and have an actionable cause?

thornhappy -> RE: You're Fired!!! (7/25/2010 1:35:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY It really goes beyond just a simple, "is it right?" Ya know, the more I ponder this, the more I think that the person seeking to fire the employee is the one who should be fired. This is an employee who doesn't care if something is morally right. Say a Green is working at an oil company. If they are slackers, caught damaging equipment, or are found to be forwarding protected correspondence to environmental groups they should be fired for those activities, not for voting for a Green candidate. Same with the hypothetical about an adult book store owner.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875