Could one legally equate eye color with race or gender, all of them being immutable physical characteristics?
It’s somewhat like a dress code. They can also fire you for wearing the wrong clothes, or even the wrong hairstyle, facial hair or whatever, but I think it’s reprehensible that the employer is not required to justify the firing in terms of how not doing so would have damaged the day-to-day operation of the plant. I feel the same way about dress codes, with some allowances for reasonable standards.
The basic message here, to my mind, is it sucks to be an employee, or anyone else who is dependent on the whims of others.
If it were just the matter of the car being parked there, couldn’t he have told her she had to park it on the street? Probably that still would have resulted in a disagreement and, ultimately, a dismissal, but it would have made the employer look marginally better in my eyes.
I wonder if there were other job performance issues with this woman?
[aside]And what’s with this Gaddis deciding to become an insulation manufacturer after all those years of law school?
I agree that Kerry hiring the woman was very cool. I do wish, however, that he would make proper political hay out of it. “Here’s my answer to your Patriot Act, Mr. Bush. Why don’t you let Americans speak their minds?” Or something to that effect. Also, I wonder what happens to the woman after the election. Political appointments are notoriously fickle.
It seems that the lawyers here are in agreement that nothing illegal was done. Does the worker have a valid civil case? I seem to remember that most wrongfull termination cases are heard as civil cases and not as a criminal matter.
No civil claim. That’s what we’ve been addressing in this thread. (The only part of the discussion that involved a criminal penalty was that involving the bribery/voting intimidation statutes.)
Am I the only one who wants to sneak into the parking lot of Mr. Geddes’ company and slap a fat “Kerry/Edwards” bumper sticker on his personal vehicle?
These are just some of the quotes, I got tired of looking. Although after review some posts were specific to a civil claim most were asking if it was “legal”. I was just trying to clarify it for myself.
Just because something is not criminal does not meant it is legal. Illegal and criminal do not mean exactly the same things. The latter is a subset of the former.
I know what you mean, Liberal (and others who have voiced similar concerns). But, obviously, having a job almost immediately after this incident is much better than trying to quickly find another one. I look at it this way: at least now she has until November (at least…?) to find a different job. Had Kerry not made the offer, she wouldn’t have that “luxury”.
I also agree: awesome move by Kerry.
As far as the legality/ethics involved with the firing… it’s one of those scenarios that I just always assumed was legal, only due to some kind of loophole (or what-not) in the system. Legal or not, Guin is right-- I really don’t see how people like this can live with themselves.
What makes you think she has it now? Kerry might be expecting her to, you know, work. Whether she’s forty hours at the plant or forty hours in the rented storefront, she’s still preoccupied.
Even if the firing isn’t criminal, and even if it isn’t against any civil law, unless Alabama is different from most other states she can still sue for wrongful termination. If she gets a shark of a lawyer (John Edwards could no doubt recommend one) all she has to do is put her case before almost any jury, and she can almost count on a big judgement against her asshole former boss. More likely a nice settlement.
In my dictionary the latter is a synonym of the former. I take it that you mean that to a lawyer there is a different legal definition. You may understand it but reading through the posts it seems that there has been a lot of mixing of the two definitions. To be more specific I will ask is this action a tort? Is it impossible to sue for wrongfull termination in this case or is just very difficult to win?
You’re talking nonsense. There’s no blanket cause of action for wrongful termination because the employer did something mean or unpopular. Your suggested “case” never gets to a jury, because the employer’s motion to dismiss is granted by the judge. If the judge is asleep, and the jury does award damages, it gets reversed on appeal. (See my previous response, which lays out the 3 exceptions to the employment at will standard.)
If you have no clue about how the legal system works, you should avoid making claims like this. It just makes you look stupid.
Fair question. There’s actually a couple questions here. First, some basics. A tort is a civil wrong. Loosely speaking, a tort is a civil claim that’s not (a) a breach of contract claim, or (b) a cause of action created by statute. (I’m ignoring some obscure common law claims and the idea that some statutory claims are codified torts.)
I said before that there are three main exceptions to the employment at will doctrine. The first exception prohibits firings because the employee being fired is a member of a protected class. I’m not an employment law expert, so no doubt I’ll miss a nuance or two, but it should come as no surprise to anyone that various statutes prohibit firings based on the employee’s race, gender, age, national origin or religion. An employee fired for one of these reasons has a civil cause of action. (I’m ignoring the administrative steps that the plaintiff must sometimes follow before he has asuch a right to sue.) I wouldn’t call such a lawusit a tort claim.
Second exception is the public policy prohibition. Most of the cases here are ultimately based on a statute, either on express language in the statute, or by implication. I probably find some cases that aren’t, though. I suppose you could call these cases torts.
Third exception is the breach of contract situation. These aren’t tort claims.
Last question. No, it’s not impossible to sue, even if you don’t fit into one of these exceptions. Winning the case, or the fabled “settlement” is a different story. Any idiot can file a lawsuit, even DesertGeezer. People have filed suit against God and the Devil (real service of process problems here). Such nonsense cases are typically dismissed fairly quickly.
So it appears that you and I, in the three hypothetical situations, would react in the same way if we were the employers in question. We’d tolerate the bumper sticker, but not the button or large car sign.
Where we appear to differ is what the law should should require in these instances. You believe that:
In other words, you think that the First Amendment should be changed from this:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
to this:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In addition, no employer shall prevent an employee from parking in the employer’s lot with a bumper sticker or any kind, unless such bumper sticker is too large or generally offensive.”
Sorry, but I’d much rather that Congress and the courts focus their attention on other, more pressing issues. I don’t want my taxpayer dollars funding some guy in a robe trying to figure out whether the car sign is too big, or whether it’s “generally offensive”.
It seems to me that the employer’s actions here are at least coersive and would violate your principals, Lib. But I guess this shows the big flaw in your philosophy, that some people are more equal based on what they own.
“May I express enjoyment of my sandwich?”