4 ms·

Its ridiculous claims because both of them are easy, enormous lawsuits if true. The fact that these people never sued for these claims makes it more likely this

Its ridiculous claims because both of them are easy, enormous lawsuits if true. The fact that these people never sued for these claims makes it more likely this is exaggerated like a lot of the rest of the article.

rdtsc 11y ago
Employement in the US is usually on "at-will" basis. That is usually sold to employees as "hey you can quit anytime, isn't that great". In reality the employer usually just means "hey, I can let you go anytime". Of course they can't fire for discriminatory stuff. They can't say "well this person is too old or not white enough or a woman". But they can say stuff like "for performance reasons", "restructuring", etc. even if they really mean the former reasons (race, color, gender, age...) as long as there is an official cover the law is on the employer's side. So I still don't see enormous lawsuit potential here. One was fired for "performance" reasons (wink-wink) and another for "culture fit" (wink-wink again). There is some potential but only with a recording/email/some kind of evidence.
- crucifiction 11y ago
  Both examples in the article would be discriminatory and are against the EEOC and as such would be lawsuit worthy. If they are unable to bring a suit then it likely means the facts are not really in their favor. One person claims to have emails about it, but never brought a case? Seems more likely employees who were on their way out anyways.
  - rdtsc 11y ago
    Most people do not have the means, time, money, connections, ability to go and sue even if they have been wronged or think they might have a clear case. I certainly have not heard about the EEOC, I don't even know what that is. Talking about their experience to a reporter is a lot easier. And I think saying "if they haven't sued, it means their story is false" is a bit extreme.

4 ms·

Its ridiculous claims because both of them are easy, enormous lawsuits if true. The fact that these people never sued for these claims makes it more likely this

by crucifiction 11y ago

rdtsc 11y ago
Employement in the US is usually on "at-will" basis. That is usually sold to employees as "hey you can quit anytime, isn't that great". In reality the employer usually just means "hey, I can let you go anytime". Of course they can't fire for discriminatory stuff. They can't say "well this person is too old or not white enough or a woman". But they can say stuff like "for performance reasons", "restructuring", etc. even if they really mean the former reasons (race, color, gender, age...) as long as there is an official cover the law is on the employer's side. So I still don't see enormous lawsuit potential here. One was fired for "performance" reasons (wink-wink) and another for "culture fit" (wink-wink again). There is some potential but only with a recording/email/some kind of evidence.
- crucifiction 11y ago
  Both examples in the article would be discriminatory and are against the EEOC and as such would be lawsuit worthy. If they are unable to bring a suit then it likely means the facts are not really in their favor. One person claims to have emails about it, but never brought a case? Seems more likely employees who were on their way out anyways.
  - rdtsc 11y ago
    Most people do not have the means, time, money, connections, ability to go and sue even if they have been wronged or think they might have a clear case. I certainly have not heard about the EEOC, I don't even know what that is. Talking about their experience to a reporter is a lot easier. And I think saying "if they haven't sued, it means their story is false" is a bit extreme.