5 ms·

It's AT-WILL in California. I don't know why the above person below me who pointed this out is getting downvoted.

cperciva 16y ago
At-will employment doesn't provide a blanket exemption from wrongful termination suits. The fact that you can fire someone for no reason doesn't mean that you can fire them for a bad reason -- and if, for example, a whistle-blower is fired, there will be a strong presumption that the whistle-blowing was the cause of the firing. (Obviously this is not a whistle-blower case here, and I don't know if there would be any grounds on which to sue for wrongful termination; I'm not a California employment lawyer.)
- bcarney 16y ago
  "At-will employment doesn't provide a blanket exemption from wrongful termination suits" Well, yeah. Stipulations include forcing someone to do anything illegal, firing someone because they're involved in union activity, or terminating someone based on discrimination. Please CITE a source or a case that concludes you can't fire someone for getting involved in the aforementioned mess in the link above whether he is guilty or not guilty. Thank you.
  - chc 16y ago
    Can you cite a case that found the opposite?
    - bcarney 16y ago
      Yeah, sure. Here's one: http://www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/rnr/2000/rnrvictims.pdf http://www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/rnr/2000/rnrvictims.pdf
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- chc 16y ago
  Also not a layer, but I've heard discussions of California employment law from people who are, and the impression I've got is that the law can go a whole lot further than whistle-blowers. Essentially, you can let someone go for no reason at all, but they can still sue for discrimination, breach of contract, etc. (Disclaimer: Again, not a lawyer — that's just my layman's understanding of what I've heard and you should probably not cite this comment in court.)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- bcarney 16y ago
  It's pretty laughable that all of the "at-will" proponents are getting downvoted. Here's a quote from actual lawyers on this matter: "If the accused is an employee at-will, his or her employer is free to terminate him or her for no reason or even a bad reason, so long as it is not a reason prohibited by law. Discharging an employee based on an accusation of sexual harassment is not unlawful, even if the accusation is not correct." http://www.fklaborlaw.com/faqs/Sexual-harassment-accused-rights.html http://www.fklaborlaw.com/faqs/Sexual-harassment-accused-rig...
  - lrm242 16y ago
    Not sure why you're so adamant about this. The OP asked if he should be terminated and the folks you're responding to simply said it's best to wait until you have more facts and can make an informed decision. Firing anyone at any time can open you up to a lawsuit. There is nearly zero barrier to filing a lawsuit; and a lawsuit, even one without merit, requires time, energy, and investment from the company to defend itself. That's why so many companies go out of their way to stay out of court and only fight those cases that are so clearly black and white they have little to no chance of losing. When a case falls into the grey area the cost of loss typically drastically outweighs the cost of settling. You have to make sure you do it properly. Proper documentation, proper reasoning, and proper legal support--especially in a case like this.
    - bcarney 16y ago
      Pretty sure the responses were to this: "Better be careful about making any decisions on a blog post. That's how wrongful termination lawsuits get filed."

At-will employment doesn't provide a blanket exemption from wrongful termination suits. The fact that you can fire someone for no reason doesn't mean that you can fire them for a bad reason -- and if, for example, a whistle-blower is fired, there will be a strong presumption that the whistle-blowing was the cause of the firing. (Obviously this is not a whistle-blower case here, and I don't know if there would be any grounds on which to sue for wrongful termination; I'm not a California employment lawyer.)

bcarney 16y ago
"At-will employment doesn't provide a blanket exemption from wrongful termination suits" Well, yeah. Stipulations include forcing someone to do anything illegal, firing someone because they're involved in union activity, or terminating someone based on discrimination. Please CITE a source or a case that concludes you can't fire someone for getting involved in the aforementioned mess in the link above whether he is guilty or not guilty. Thank you.
- chc 16y ago
  Can you cite a case that found the opposite?
  - bcarney 16y ago
    Yeah, sure. Here's one: http://www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/rnr/2000/rnrvictims.pdf http://www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/rnr/2000/rnrvictims.pdf
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
chc 16y ago
Also not a layer, but I've heard discussions of California employment law from people who are, and the impression I've got is that the law can go a whole lot further than whistle-blowers. Essentially, you can let someone go for no reason at all, but they can still sue for discrimination, breach of contract, etc. (Disclaimer: Again, not a lawyer — that's just my layman's understanding of what I've heard and you should probably not cite this comment in court.)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
bcarney 16y ago
It's pretty laughable that all of the "at-will" proponents are getting downvoted. Here's a quote from actual lawyers on this matter: "If the accused is an employee at-will, his or her employer is free to terminate him or her for no reason or even a bad reason, so long as it is not a reason prohibited by law. Discharging an employee based on an accusation of sexual harassment is not unlawful, even if the accusation is not correct." http://www.fklaborlaw.com/faqs/Sexual-harassment-accused-rights.html http://www.fklaborlaw.com/faqs/Sexual-harassment-accused-rig...
- lrm242 16y ago
  Not sure why you're so adamant about this. The OP asked if he should be terminated and the folks you're responding to simply said it's best to wait until you have more facts and can make an informed decision. Firing anyone at any time can open you up to a lawsuit. There is nearly zero barrier to filing a lawsuit; and a lawsuit, even one without merit, requires time, energy, and investment from the company to defend itself. That's why so many companies go out of their way to stay out of court and only fight those cases that are so clearly black and white they have little to no chance of losing. When a case falls into the grey area the cost of loss typically drastically outweighs the cost of settling. You have to make sure you do it properly. Proper documentation, proper reasoning, and proper legal support--especially in a case like this.
  - bcarney 16y ago
    Pretty sure the responses were to this: "Better be careful about making any decisions on a blog post. That's how wrongful termination lawsuits get filed."