32 ms·
If you were fired for your political views in CA, that would be wrongful termination.
by zwerdlds 9y ago
If you were fired for your political views in CA, that would be wrongful termination.
- poke111 9y agoKind of like Brendan Eich?
- zwerdlds 9y agoEich resigned, he wasn't terminated.
- poke111 9y agoIt's true that Eich resigned, under extreme pressure. Is that a good thing? It just underscores my point - that even with legal protections, there still needs to be a cultural shift towards acceptance (or at least tolerance) of people with heterodox views.
- zwerdlds 9y agoI think you're just moving the goalposts here.
- BrendanEich 9y agoGoogle "constructive termination".
- zwerdlds 9y agoWhy didn't you file suit?
- BrendanEich 9y agoWhy didn't you search for the phrase I gave and read up? Suits get settled exactly that way, and also get headed off that way before filing. I'm writing in general of course. I am not commenting on my particular situation, note well. Suits also often get settled with various strictures on talking about the details. HTH.
- zwerdlds 9y agoSorry if I hit a nerve. I can see why it would be difficult. I'm on the outside, so my the reading I did probably doesn't represent the full situation. I asked that question because I was genuinely curious - the resources I found seemed to indicate that constructive termination could still constitute wrongful termination in CA. By the way, if you have a specific resource you want me to read, I'd love to have the link.
- BrendanEich 9y agoI'm answering in generalities for legal reasons. It's not a matter of "[hitting] a nerve" so much as negotiated contracts. You should not assume in general (again, not specifying facts about my case) that "wrongful" cannot be negotiated to a settlement, including with terms governing statements parties can make. Labor law != criminal law: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Private_Law_vs_Public_Law https://www.diffen.com/difference/Private_Law_vs_Public_Law Therefore (again generalizing) if (likely net benefit of winning, adjusted for risk of losing) - (cost of suit) <= (benefit of settlement - lower cost of counsel to get to a settlement), and a similar relation for employer that takes into account PR risk-adusted costs as well, rational-actor parties tend to settle, with money flowing to the exiting employee and conditions binding the parties. This happens often, and is cloaked by non-disclosure terms almost always.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]