The point of such a statement is also that there are 21 states that have seen fit to enact laws that do protect an individual’s right not to be fired on the basis of sexual orientation. Maps such as the one in this Wikipedia article make the point that many citizens and governments feel that sexual orientation is worth protecting.
If its employee is charged with a felony, does that giv an employer sufficient cause to fire him/her
In the US, most employment is “at will;” unless there’s something specific to a particular job that makes the rule different, an employer can just tell an employee “fuck off, you don’t work here” and have literally no reason for it, give no notice, and justify the decision to no one. Not that this is a very good idea, but it’s technically true.
Canadian employment law doesn’t use the concept of “at will” employment. If you fire somebody without cause, you have to give them reasonable notice that you’re going to do it. If you fire somebody for a specific reason, you’re supposed to have just cause, i.e. it should be something that it’s reasonable to fire somebody for – something that affected their employment with you, and that people would know in advance was the kind of thing that was a fireable offense. So you have to look at the specifics of the circumstances in a way that in the US you would just never do in the normal case.
In the UK, our Equalities act means that you cannot be fired by dint of being in one of the protected characteristics, that includes gay or sexual orientation, trans etc.
It also means you cannot be fired on the grounds of age, nor is an employer allowed to cause detriment on the grounds of the protected characteristics. This leads to areas where an employer might decide to offer expensive training to employees below a certain age but to to those above that age - however this becomes age discrimination.
Here is a list of protected characteristics, and given that this falls into line with EU directives, it applies right across Europe within local national legislation
When it comes to criminal activities, it depends greatly.
Depends on your job, accusations of behaviour that contradict professional ethics will almost certainly result in suspension.
The accusation alone may be examined after the trial and may result in loss of the licence to practice. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is much higher than in an organisational HR standard. Anything that flows from safeguarding can result in a person being added to a risk register, it may well mean that the criminally cleared person might well find they cannot get vetting clearance to work in certain occupations.
I have seen it work the other way, I know of one person who was convicted of manslaughter, served his prison time and went back to his old job - he did have to reapply but was taken back.
I seen others who were convicted of far lesser offences and have still retained their existing jobs, they were not paid whilst they were serving out their sentence.
I also know of one person who went to prison for a particular crime involving offences against the company he worked for, he remained employed with the same company and even worked directly for the same company whilst in prison. I can’t go into much detail because it might be possible to work it out.
Or, if not notice, severance pay, as set out in labour standards statutes.
So it’s not quite true that we don’t have “at will” - the employer generally can fire at any time. It’s just that there are pecuniary consequences for firing without cause and without notice.
Not intended as legal advice, of course. Anyone who is facing this sort of situation in Canada should consult a lawyer or the labour standards office.
Yes, in Canada someone can be fired for “cause” - i.e. for problems related to the job. Fired means - leave now, pay stops now, you brought this on yourself. This can include frequent lateness, theft, insubordination (refusing boss’s reasonable orders) , harassing another employee, etc. it can even include failure to perform the job properly.
However, an employer better be damned sure they have real grounds, or there are extra damages that they may be liable for. For things like lateness or incompetence, there has to be a paper trail of warnings and giving opportunities to correct behavior before finally giving up.
Whether an employee can be fired for being charged - this depends. if the crime is related to the job or ability to do the job (IANAL) i.e. an accountant who stole outside of work? Someone who needs to be bonded? But say someone is charged with domestic assault - unless the spouse works at the same workplace, I assume they’d be on shaky grounds to fire him. Plus, if found not guilty, grounds for firing go away. If it’s questionable, either pay him to go away or suspend with pay.
As others point out, higher level executives have contracts which include clauses about termination for bringing the name of the company into disrepute. (“CEO of XYZ charged with X” is pretty much the definition of bad publicity for the company)
Even as a bottom level peon, I had to sign a code of conduct for one company that said “if you do something that harms the reputation of the company” they could fire you. I just never heard it used. however, there was the one case of the guy who was an employee of Ontario’s Hydro One, who yelled obscenities at a TV reporter during a live on-location shoot. She figured out who he was, contacted the employer, who fired him - even though he was just one of their engineers. Of course, once the employer’s name became part of the news story, it’s hard to argue it had nothing to do with his employer. IIRC, that case is still in litigation.
If the employer has no grounds, they can let you go for no reason at all (provided it’s not discrimination against protected classes) but have to give you reasonable notice or pay out that notice. Typical labour standards minimums are 2 weeks pay, 3 weeks after 5 years. For more skilled workers (accountant, IT, middle management, engineer, etc.) it can be more, taking into account how hard it is to find an equivalent job, how long they worked there, age, etc. The rule of thumb (but outdated and too generous today) was one month for every year of service up to 24 months pay. the company will make an offer, and then it’s up to the employee to accept or negotiate or fight in court. So if the company offers too little, or tries to strong-arm, there’s the risk they will get dinged extra in court for treating the employee unfair. (“Sign this now, or we’ll pay you the legal minimum 3 weeks.”)
Of course, if they make you work out your time instead of paying you cash, there’s the risk that you will not perform your best… so a company that wants to get rid of someone obviously has to pay for the privilege, especially for longer term employees.
In the UK, firing someone “on a whim” is considered as something from the dark ages, when children worked in mines a were sent up chimneys. Rightly so in my opinion, although the pendulum can swing too far.
If you want to get rid of an established employee, there are really two legal ways. You can make them redundant, in which case their job has to have ceased to exist. You have to compensate them (on a scale relating to age and length of service) and some other safeguards, like not making all the ugly fat people go, and keeping the young pretty ones.
To fire someone without compensation, for misconduct, requires you to allow the employee to hear the accusation and defend themselves (Union reps usually get involved here). Usually there would have to be a couple of recorded warnings first - “Pull your socks up or you will get canned”. For serious misdemeanors, like fighting, drunkenness, drugs etc. It can be instant, but still with the right for a hearing.
The favourite way of removing a slack employee is on their timekeeping. Only the most cunning slacker is always on time. and it is usually hard for them to challenge, especially if they are on the clock. Such workers are usually unpopular too, so their fellows won’t support them.
Thanks for your answer.
BTW, the case of the guy “who yelled obscenities” was one of the cases I was thinking about in my OP. But, in fact, he *wasn’t *the one who yelled them. It was his pal who did. The guy who got fired from Hydro basically said words to the effect, “that was pretty funny”. Enough to get him fired apparently.
Though, depending on the circumstances, you might be able to argue that being fired for being ugly is sexual discrimination, and that being fired for being blue-eyed is racial discrimination, both of which are illegal in the U.S.
You could but you’d lose, black, Asian and all races have blue eyes.
As for being gay, the EEOC has stated that homosexuality falls under a protected class, though it’s yet to be tested in the courts regionally or nationwide. Remember a lot of states and locals have a lot more protections than the federal protections. Michigan, for instance, is the only state to put overweight people into a protected class.
So basically everyone is a member of three protected classes, Religion (courts have ruled no religion falls under this), race and nationality. Add to that sexual orientation which will likely be affirmed by the courts.
Also remember not all business need to follow the above, very small businesses, like a restaurant can discriminate legally. This is why you will see, for example, only Chinese employed by a small Chinese restaurant. The cut off federally is less than 15 employees.
As for the OP on a federal level there is little that can be done absent a binding employment agreement or a CBA, but local and/or state protections may be greater.
In Canada, you can’t be fired for being gay (amongst other protected classes). If you are, human rights law usually entitles you to get your job back.
No religion is protected by the religious class?
In Canada, human rights laws apply generally, regardless of the size of the business.
Yes, because when I’m looking for work, the first place I go is a business which has already fired me for some unalterable trait. I’m sure my employment at that business would be a whole massive load of peaches and/or cream, and they’d never institute a policy of being just nasty enough to me to make my life harder without being nasty enough I could retaliate.
This is a little misleading. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, binding upon all U.S. citizens, corporate and otherwise. That said, it contains next to nothing about employment law. Federal laws enacted pursuant to it, however (not to mention state law), cover employment issues at some length. However, as noted above, most employees are at-will, and if they are not, employment contracts will typically state how, when and if someone can be fired.
I believe Carryon meant that you can’t be fired you for not having a religion. It is still considered religious discrimination, even if your religion is “none”. I don’t know if that’s true, but it would seem logical to me.
It is pretty common for folks like CEOs to have a clause in their contract that says they can be terminated if anything happens that impacts their ability to do the job.
And also a clause that points out that part of the job is seeming like a fine upstanding guy.
Basically, the mere appearance of impropriety is enough to get them fired.
So, while maybe they can’t fire you for being charged with a felony, they can definitely fire you because the public thinks you are a crook (because you have been charged with a felony).
Just chiming in- It was always my understanding, that as long as the reasons aren’t discriminatory in nature, an employer can release an employee from their duties for any reason the choose. Unless, as I think was already stated in a very early reply, the employee is in a union.