4 ms·

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 actu

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.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    "Injunctive relief"? Help me understand what you mean by this.
  - kelukelugames 11y ago
    You are arguing with someone whose limited exposure comes from observing secondhand issues. People don't know the difference between what feels right and is legally safe.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      Legally safe is to have lots of cash in your war chest, and enough time to be very patient. The law doesn't need to be on your side if the judge is. Perhaps I'm only pessimistic because I have been metaphorically kicked in the teeth by too many kinds of grown-up bullies, and have seen too many all-too-familiar stories about it happening to other people like me.
danielrhodes 11y ago
Couldn't the company fire without cause to avoid the potential wrongful termination lawsuits? Or would the company remain exposed to a sexual harassment suit as they couldn't prove they did something as a direct result of the incident.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Most of the companies I have worked for would likely do exactly that. The problem employee would be terminated as an ordinary cost-cutting layoff, and no one would be the wiser. The expedient solution is to be spineless and cover your own ass. It does not produce the desired behavior at higher levels, but the Nash equilibrium is to do it quietly and kick the can down the road for the next employer to deal with. This is exactly how the Catholic church and the Boy Scouts handled its pedophiles--cover it up and delay accountability indefinitely. If there may be a threat to sue, offer a severance package that precludes civil lawsuits. I was once laid off, and I suspect the reason for it was that the company did not want to pay off on my as-yet-unvested options at a time when the public stock was at an all-time high. I didn't sue, because the severance package was worth more to me than the potentially years-long litigation hassle. They, in turn, never admitted to any particular reason for laying me off. If I'm going to end up screwed either way, I'd prefer the method that allows me to get it over with and get on with my life the next day. The impetus to throw just enough money at the problem to make it disappear fuels some of the scams that prey on very large companies. This is closely related to the business model for patent trolls. If you ask for slightly less money than litigation would cost, you get quietly paid. Edit: Most civil cases don't go to trial, and I don't care enough about my own disposable post on the Internet to go look up legal citations as a tangentially interested non-lawyer just because some other disposable post on the Internet asked for them. My point was that corporate employers are amoral, and would prefer to handle a potentially hairy situation cheaply rather than ethically. The only points required are as follows. 1. It is possible that a recently terminated employee could sue the former employer; it even happens occasionally in real life. 2. Such a lawsuit has a nonzero cost to the employer (and also the ex-employee). 3. Therefore, the employer can theoretically save money by bribing the ex-employee with a lesser amount than in #2 to not sue. 4. This could potentially allow the ex-employee to escape the consequences of actions that may or may not have led to the termination. The general consensus among companies is to do the easy thing, not the right thing.

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.
- tptacek 11y ago
  "Injunctive relief"? Help me understand what you mean by this.
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  You are arguing with someone whose limited exposure comes from observing secondhand issues. People don't know the difference between what feels right and is legally safe.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    Legally safe is to have lots of cash in your war chest, and enough time to be very patient. The law doesn't need to be on your side if the judge is. Perhaps I'm only pessimistic because I have been metaphorically kicked in the teeth by too many kinds of grown-up bullies, and have seen too many all-too-familiar stories about it happening to other people like me.

danielrhodes 11y ago

Couldn't the company fire without cause to avoid the potential wrongful termination lawsuits? Or would the company remain exposed to a sexual harassment suit as they couldn't prove they did something as a direct result of the incident.

logfromblammo 11y ago
Most of the companies I have worked for would likely do exactly that. The problem employee would be terminated as an ordinary cost-cutting layoff, and no one would be the wiser. The expedient solution is to be spineless and cover your own ass. It does not produce the desired behavior at higher levels, but the Nash equilibrium is to do it quietly and kick the can down the road for the next employer to deal with. This is exactly how the Catholic church and the Boy Scouts handled its pedophiles--cover it up and delay accountability indefinitely. If there may be a threat to sue, offer a severance package that precludes civil lawsuits. I was once laid off, and I suspect the reason for it was that the company did not want to pay off on my as-yet-unvested options at a time when the public stock was at an all-time high. I didn't sue, because the severance package was worth more to me than the potentially years-long litigation hassle. They, in turn, never admitted to any particular reason for laying me off. If I'm going to end up screwed either way, I'd prefer the method that allows me to get it over with and get on with my life the next day. The impetus to throw just enough money at the problem to make it disappear fuels some of the scams that prey on very large companies. This is closely related to the business model for patent trolls. If you ask for slightly less money than litigation would cost, you get quietly paid. Edit: Most civil cases don't go to trial, and I don't care enough about my own disposable post on the Internet to go look up legal citations as a tangentially interested non-lawyer just because some other disposable post on the Internet asked for them. My point was that corporate employers are amoral, and would prefer to handle a potentially hairy situation cheaply rather than ethically. The only points required are as follows. 1. It is possible that a recently terminated employee could sue the former employer; it even happens occasionally in real life. 2. Such a lawsuit has a nonzero cost to the employer (and also the ex-employee). 3. Therefore, the employer can theoretically save money by bribing the ex-employee with a lesser amount than in #2 to not sue. 4. This could potentially allow the ex-employee to escape the consequences of actions that may or may not have led to the termination. The general consensus among companies is to do the easy thing, not the right thing.