Retaliation by termination, NOT BAD ENOUGH? then accused of Felony Theft

[chasin_illusion]

What is the name of your state?Utah, Salt Lake City
. I feel that my supervisor (retaliation) was in fear that my complaint to her superior would show her lack of unprofessional performance and job responsibilities. Upon false accusations of my abandoning my position was then falsely accused of felony theft. Any Recource? Was told that this would be thrown out of crimminal court, due to no evidence. DUH!

 

[Beth3]

It seems to me that you've posted a similar version of this recently. The answer is the same. Since your supervisor behaving unprofessionally is not illegal, complaining about it is not a protected activity. Terminating you in retaliation for complaining is not illegal, nor is accusing you of theft if they suspected you did so. If the district attorney declined to prosecute due to lack of evidence, that's their choice.

 

[chasin_illusion]

Utah state law states:
Public Privacy exceptions are that the courts have identified various sources. Typically statutory, regulatory and constitutional law, which are to be recognized as repositories of public policy. If an employers action is seen as retaliation for taking advantage of, a right or carrying one out an obligation; that is set out in one of these sources, the action is prohibited under the public policy exception and the employee may be entitled to reinstatement, back pay, and other damage awards.
The fact that a state has not specifically prohibited retaliation for reasons of public policy should not be interpreted as permission to undertake retaliation action, but only as an indication that the state has not yet delineated.

Also, lets not forget additional protections may be available under the covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, which is the basic standard of farness that is also implied by both written and oral.

 

[chasin_illusion]

Retaliation by termination

Beth, waiting for a responce . Please advise

 

[pattytx]

Not that Beth can't stand up for herself, because she can, but I'm returning the favor.

None of your last post asked for a response. You seemed to have it all worked out. I wouldn't have responded either.

 

[Beth3]

Complaining to your supervisor's superior about your supervisor's unprofessional behavior is not a protected right. Therefore there is no public policy violation for any retaliation for doing so.

 

[chasin_illusion]

Thanks patty for your responce, dont know why you did, but just the same, Hmmmmm

 

[chasin_illusion]

If an employers action is seen as retaliation for taking advantage of, a right or carrying one out an obligation; that is set out in one of these sources, the action is prohibited under the public policy exception and the employee may be entitled to reinstatement, back pay, and other damage awards.
The fact that a state has not specifically prohibited retaliation for reasons of public policy should not be interpreted as permission to undertake retaliation action, but only as an indication that the state has not yet delineated.

Also, lets not forget additional protections may be available under the covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, which is the basic standard of farness that is also implied by both written and oral.

 

[Beth3]

And you're repeating the same info because???

Again, I don't see any public policy violation. Complaining about your supervisor is neither a right nor an obligation. Firing you for responding to a summons for jury duty is a public policy violation. Firing you for complaining that you don't like your boss's style is not.

 

[chasin_illusion]

My problem is not her style beth, my problem is that my superior had made verbal promises to train me for the position that I was hired on for and after waiting for that training and making mistakes time and time again, without receiving the training that I was told I would get. (Which would have reduced the mistakes being made) I was told that my job was on the line for the repeated mistakes made. Being very upset with the fact that now my employment was on the line, I had taken my complaint to her superior and asked why I was not receiving the training promised. After my supervisor learned of my going over her head to try to resolve what she clearly was not, had terminated my employment and stated that the reason for my termination was due to my abandoning my position while I was on third day of funeral leave. I did not abandon my position and because of asking for the training that I was promised, no longer have a job, nor am I able to get unemployment due to the fact that ( I had left my job ) so on and so on. Now being tried for felony theft, which came up missing while I was on my funeral leave. And you don’t think that there was any kind of wrong doing>?
Please advise or explain your reasoning if you would

 

[Beth3]

I think you got a raw deal but that doesn't make it illegal and it doesn't make it a public policy violation. The latter only applies when a matter is in the general public's best interests. So using my prior example, it is in the public's best interests that any employee not be retaliated against by their employer for responding to a lawful summons for jury duty. But your situation is specific to you and your employer and has nothing to do with the public at large.

I think you should pursue the unemployment issue, file for a hearing, and see if the State will award you benefits. But beyond that, I don't see any possible legal recourse.

 

[chasin_illusion]

it doesn't make it a public policy violation:????? Wow```standards must be uniformly applied in an unbiased fashion. Otherwise, there may be cause for a wrongful termination claim.




for responding to a lawful summons for jury duty:

Who said anything about a jury duty, this is clealry not the reason I would be using the retailation verbage.. In the courtroom, an employee/plaintiff can prove retaliation in one of two ways: direct or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is the easiest to prove, but it very rarely happens. An example of direct evidence would be handing the employee a notice of termination that says, “You complained of discrimination and you’re fired.” Plaintiff’s attorneys dream of that kind of evidence. In that case, employee/plaintiff wins, hands down.

 

[itsacatsworld]

you clearly quit your job. now your facing felony charges, if your innocent take it to a jury and be on with your life . If your guilty weigh the offer very carefully.

 

[matti422]

Also, lets not forget additional protections may be available under the covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, which is the basic standard of farness QUOTE]

Call me crazy, but isn't the Good Faith and Fair Dealing for contract and commercial dealings? I don't think it covers non-contracted employment or general personality traits.

 

[chasin_illusion]

I thank you all for your input, and will let you know of the outcome. Always a pleasure!