4 ms·

That is not the consensus. The consensus in the grown-up business world is to protect the company. Protect the company from the sexual harassment suit, and pr

That is not the consensus. The consensus in the grown-up business world is to protect the company. Protect the company from the sexual harassment suit, and protect the company from the wrongful termination suit. As such, no one will ever fire for cause on the basis of one incident report on a single interaction that occurred away from the workplace. But you can be certain that everyone in the building gets additional harassment training, and management/HR keeps a closer eye on all employees involved: complainants, suspects, and their direct supervisors. The company then accumulates sufficient pretext on all the involved employees to justify termination of "at will" employment for any one of them, and then waits to see if anyone will end up costing the company money before pulling the trigger. That is the consensus. It is not fair. It just saves money. As such, I would caution against looking to the consensus when deliberating on the morality or ethics.

tptacek 11y ago
What "wrongful termination" suit are you referring to? Please be as specific as you can.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  That's the lawsuit brought by the person who gets fired, which requires the corporate lawyer to submit at least a brief and motion for dismissal, if not an actual answer to the claims. People occasionally do sue their former employers when they believe they have been wronged in some way. If you fire someone for sexual harassment when no such thing occurred, the ex-employee might sue for no other reason than to get a declaratory judgment asserting the facts of the case, as subsequent employers may be reluctant to hire, otherwise. Conflicts that cannot be resolved amicably often end up in civil court. Losing your job is an emotional experience which may result in loss of amity. That is all. I did not intend to imply that such cases had inherent merit or support of statute. You can sue anyone for any reason in civil court, and appeal to equity, which is basically complaining that something isn't fair, and that the court should do a specific thing within its power to make it less unfair. If you are ever fired, for cause or not, it would be prudent to consult with an employment law specialist so as to not waste everyone's time with a frivolous suit.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    If you believe this, it seems like you might also believe that it's legally risky to fire a developer who rm's the production environment. After all, they might bring a frivolous lawsuit for no purpose other than to "get a declaratory judgement asserting the facts of the case". (Incidentally: I don't think you can just "sue for declaratory judgement" to enlist judges to settle arbitrary disputes; the judgement has to apply to a justiciable controversy. If the employer threatened to sue the accused for damages, for instance.)
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      I can't tell whether I am explaining myself poorly or whether you are intentionally misinterpreting. I am not a lawyer, and to my knowledge, neither are you. And that's why I won't go further than this post on this branch of the conversation. As I have noted before, you can apparently post far more often than I can, and I can't keep up with you even when I have any credible knowledge on the topic. I have a somewhat jaded view of the US civil court system. Others, not quite so jaded, believe in the Hollywood stories where Joe Average can take on Blatantly Unethical, Inc. and win. Those are the people foolish enough to sue their former employers. Just don't do it. Take your licks and move on. In your hypothetical, the ex-employee sues for injunctive relief against the former employer disclosing to anyone the reason why he was fired, as it is damaging to his professional reputation and therefore materially impacts earning potential. The employer has an affirmative defense that truth cannot be slander. So the judge now has legitimate reason to decide the facts of whether the employee was, in fact, fired for gross negligence. The employer submits log files with a motion brief, the judge pretends to read them, and then renders summary judgment in favor of the defendant. It is now public record forever that the employee was fired for rm'ing production. Any good lawyer could have informed the employee that this would not end well for him. Edit: Injunctive relief = the plaintiff seeks an order from the court for the defendant to either do or not do something. In this context, it would be to not tell anyone why they fired the plaintiff. This is my understanding of the concept. If you need additional explanation, talk to a lawyer, or a paralegal, or a law student, as I am none of these. This is just my layman's perception of a thing that courts can do. If the defendant disobeys the order, the plaintiff has to first find out about it and also actively petition the court to do something about it.
- emodendroket 11y ago
  What, you didn't know that people who like to sexually harass their coworkers were a protected class?
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  http://www.schwartzandperry.com/Blog/2014/October/Microsoft-Hit-with-2-Million-Judgment-in-Sexual-.aspx http://www.schwartzandperry.com/Blog/2014/October/Microsoft-... Company fired an employee without verifying harassment. Turned out harassment was fabricated.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Did you read the actual filing? Mercieca sued for discrimination and defamation. He was not simply fired after a false sexual harassment claim.

tptacek 11y ago

What "wrongful termination" suit are you referring to? Please be as specific as you can.

logfromblammo 11y ago
That's the lawsuit brought by the person who gets fired, which requires the corporate lawyer to submit at least a brief and motion for dismissal, if not an actual answer to the claims. People occasionally do sue their former employers when they believe they have been wronged in some way. If you fire someone for sexual harassment when no such thing occurred, the ex-employee might sue for no other reason than to get a declaratory judgment asserting the facts of the case, as subsequent employers may be reluctant to hire, otherwise. Conflicts that cannot be resolved amicably often end up in civil court. Losing your job is an emotional experience which may result in loss of amity. That is all. I did not intend to imply that such cases had inherent merit or support of statute. You can sue anyone for any reason in civil court, and appeal to equity, which is basically complaining that something isn't fair, and that the court should do a specific thing within its power to make it less unfair. If you are ever fired, for cause or not, it would be prudent to consult with an employment law specialist so as to not waste everyone's time with a frivolous suit.
- tptacek 11y ago
  If you believe this, it seems like you might also believe that it's legally risky to fire a developer who rm's the production environment. After all, they might bring a frivolous lawsuit for no purpose other than to "get a declaratory judgement asserting the facts of the case". (Incidentally: I don't think you can just "sue for declaratory judgement" to enlist judges to settle arbitrary disputes; the judgement has to apply to a justiciable controversy. If the employer threatened to sue the accused for damages, for instance.)
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    I can't tell whether I am explaining myself poorly or whether you are intentionally misinterpreting. I am not a lawyer, and to my knowledge, neither are you. And that's why I won't go further than this post on this branch of the conversation. As I have noted before, you can apparently post far more often than I can, and I can't keep up with you even when I have any credible knowledge on the topic. I have a somewhat jaded view of the US civil court system. Others, not quite so jaded, believe in the Hollywood stories where Joe Average can take on Blatantly Unethical, Inc. and win. Those are the people foolish enough to sue their former employers. Just don't do it. Take your licks and move on. In your hypothetical, the ex-employee sues for injunctive relief against the former employer disclosing to anyone the reason why he was fired, as it is damaging to his professional reputation and therefore materially impacts earning potential. The employer has an affirmative defense that truth cannot be slander. So the judge now has legitimate reason to decide the facts of whether the employee was, in fact, fired for gross negligence. The employer submits log files with a motion brief, the judge pretends to read them, and then renders summary judgment in favor of the defendant. It is now public record forever that the employee was fired for rm'ing production. Any good lawyer could have informed the employee that this would not end well for him. Edit: Injunctive relief = the plaintiff seeks an order from the court for the defendant to either do or not do something. In this context, it would be to not tell anyone why they fired the plaintiff. This is my understanding of the concept. If you need additional explanation, talk to a lawyer, or a paralegal, or a law student, as I am none of these. This is just my layman's perception of a thing that courts can do. If the defendant disobeys the order, the plaintiff has to first find out about it and also actively petition the court to do something about it.
emodendroket 11y ago
What, you didn't know that people who like to sexually harass their coworkers were a protected class?
kelukelugames 11y ago
http://www.schwartzandperry.com/Blog/2014/October/Microsoft-Hit-with-2-Million-Judgment-in-Sexual-.aspx http://www.schwartzandperry.com/Blog/2014/October/Microsoft-... Company fired an employee without verifying harassment. Turned out harassment was fabricated.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Did you read the actual filing? Mercieca sued for discrimination and defamation. He was not simply fired after a false sexual harassment claim.