3 ms·

[IANAL] Kind of. At-will means you can fire for nearly any reason, but you can't fire for the _wrong_ reasons. Retaliation for refusing to sign a contract und

[IANAL] Kind of. At-will means you can fire for nearly any reason, but you can't fire for the _wrong_ reasons. Retaliation for refusing to sign a contract under duress ties back to "continued employment isn't considered compensation for signing an additional employment contract." Even if there's a restructuring a few months later, the burden of proof would be on the employer to prove that there was no retaliation.

rdtsc 10y ago
> the burden of proof would be on the employer to prove that there was no retaliation. Only if they are sued. And then they can just say. It would take someone who is in on the nudge-nudge wink-wink euphemisms to somehow break the silence and testify. They'd have to have a falling out with the owners / management at the same when the person who is gone sued and then testify that "what we mean by restructuring is person is the wrong race". Then bingo, easy peasy case. See companies have written rules and communication, and unwritten rules and communication. The unwritten rules are the nudge-nudge wink-wink type things. If they are very careful they could even start a performance review probation period. Could say we need to "re-evaluate your role, you have to improve your performance review numbers". They set some unrealistic goals, then the clock start ticking. And in the end they have a paper trail of a reason to lay the person off. Even though, according to unwritten communication it was really because they were the wrong race, or gender and so on.