Termination of Protected Class Employee in At-Will State

[Zigner]

I'm curious as to what the OP has been told on other forums...

 

[Proserpina]

I'm curious as to what the OP has been told on other forums...

Your wish is my command:

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191859

 

[Silverplum]

I thought only Family Law had such pigheaded posters. Boy, was I wrong!

 

[Zigner]

On the other board and on this board the OP says that the terminated employee was the only one to receive a mid-year evaluation because he was the only one with performance issues. The problem is that performance evaluations are just that, not evaluations. They are not meant to be punitive. It's clear that this company chose to use the "evaluation" more as a disciplinary tool. It's also clear that they only used this "evaluation" as a disciplinary tool on a single employee. The inference is that they wanted to get rid of the minority, but need to figure out some sort of "performance issue" to hide behind.

 

[cbg]

Here's the OP's third thread, which I have just locked. It's pointless to continue this argument - he's not going to believe a thing we say unless it's what he wants to hear.

http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?t=317291

 

[justalayman]

I'm starting to wonder if this isn't homework.

by posting the same foolish statements he has caused many well educated and well meaning posters on three different forums to continue to explain the nuances of a discrimination claim and why it can be inferred without having to have had the "higher up" prove he is a racist by making racist statements. Then they have explained why the mid year evaluation is not only not beneficial to the company but actually harmful to their case and rather than express some understanding of the responses, he does nothing but repeat the same statements over and over. A person in a real situation would learn and grow as they understood the answers. Here op simply plays the same record over and over.

If this is a real situation, op is simply an idiot and will officially learn that if the employee actually sues. It will be a well deserved spanking I might add.

 

[LdiJ]

Here's the OP's third thread, which I have just locked. It's pointless to continue this argument - he's not going to believe a thing we say unless it's what he wants to hear.

http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?t=317291

Good Lord...literally EVERYONE on three separate forums has told this poster the same thing. There is no ambiguity, no variation at all...not even minor variations.

Literally everyone has hit the same points.

I am beginning to think that this poster might be trying to make a serious point to management...that maybe this poster is not so much in denial but trying to present enough information to management that they actually take this situation seriously.

I will make one point absolutely. If this company goes even one more day without getting an attorney involved they are idiots. I really hope this is not a case of upper management burying their heads in the sand and hoping it will all go away without getting an attorney involved. Even if they reinstate the employee they NEED an attorney involved. Even if they fire the higher up they NEED an attorney involved. No matter what they NEED an attorney involved.

Upper management screwed up here big time.

 

[Ohiogal]

Your wish is my command:

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191859

I am still holding with my original opinion that this OP is the higher up that he is defending. The whole thing reeks of CYA.

 

[Proserpina]

I am still holding with my original opinion that this OP is the higher up that he is defending. The whole thing reeks of CYA.

You're not alone there. It's too ... well, it's actually a bit split-personalityish. On the one hand he seems to be somewhat removed from the actual event but then switches to "desperate, I'm screwed" in an instant.

(Yes, it's perfectly okay to add "ish" to anything you like. Because I said so)

 

[Zigner]

For the OP: I am unable and unwilling to assist you in PM's - based on the letter that your former employee's attorney has sent, I think that not only are you up a creek...your boat has a huge leak and there are no life preservers. GET AN ATTORNEY ASAP!


(Hey folks - did the OP mention anywhere else that the employee in question was the only male employee in that department?)

 

[Proserpina]

For the OP: I am unable and unwilling to assist you in PM's - based on the letter that your former employee's attorney has sent, I think that not only are you up a creek...your boat has a huge leak and there are no life preservers. GET AN ATTORNEY ASAP!


(Hey folks - did the OP mention anywhere else that the employee in question was the only male employee in that department?)

... wait ... is that what he's saying now too? Lemme check the other forum(s) with cbg...

 

[Proserpina]

I'm starting to wonder if this isn't homework.

by posting the same foolish statements he has caused many well educated and well meaning posters on three different forums to continue to explain the nuances of a discrimination claim and why it can be inferred without having to have had the "higher up" prove he is a racist by making racist statements. Then they have explained why the mid year evaluation is not only not beneficial to the company but actually harmful to their case and rather than express some understanding of the responses, he does nothing but repeat the same statements over and over. A person in a real situation would learn and grow as they understood the answers. Here op simply plays the same record over and over.

If this is a real situation, op is simply an idiot and will officially learn that if the employee actually sues. It will be a well deserved spanking I might add.

I'm about to wander over to the "homework" column myself. Specially with what Zig just shared with us (unless I misinterpreted that, which is entirely possible).

 

[Proserpina]

For the OP: I am unable and unwilling to assist you in PM's - based on the letter that your former employee's attorney has sent, I think that not only are you up a creek...your boat has a huge leak and there are no life preservers. GET AN ATTORNEY ASAP!


(Hey folks - did the OP mention anywhere else that the employee in question was the only male employee in that department?)

I got the same PM.

From the wording of the letter, I'm now pretty sure this is actually not a real situation but a homework question. I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from there.

Otherwise there would be absolutely no reason why he'd forward that letter to you, me or anybody else not on the company's legal team.

Y'know?

 

[LdiJ]

I got the same PM.

From the wording of the letter, I'm now pretty sure this is actually not a real situation but a homework question. I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from there.

Otherwise there would be absolutely no reason why he'd forward that letter to you, me or anybody else not on the company's legal team.

Y'know?

I dunno...I got the same PM and it makes me think that the situation is quite real.

And the parts left out were not the only male, but also the only male plus the only foreign born person. So its a three striker. Only male, only minority and only foreign born.

 

[Proserpina]

I dunno...I got the same PM and it makes me think that the situation is quite real.

And the parts left out were not the only male, but also the only male plus the only foreign born person. So its a three striker. Only male, only minority and only foreign born.

Let's assume it's real then. Why oh why is he asking several forums for legal "help" instead of letting the employer's HR/legal folk deal with it?

We can't do anything. At this point, we really can't say anything either because we're getting very close to crossing that line where it becomes irresponsible of us to go further.