4 ms·

> I am sure in the future Mr Bezos will be placed in one line with Adolf Hitler as an example of genocide. The guy may have a case somewhere in there, but this

> I am sure in the future Mr Bezos will be placed in one line with Adolf Hitler as an example of genocide. The guy may have a case somewhere in there, but this kind of hyperbole isn't doing it any favors. Stripping out the fluff, the concrete concerns seem to be: - Denied permission to transfer - Denied permission to WFH - Placed on PIP and eventually fired The author's hypothesis is "manager is evil and this is all retaliation", but this is not easily distinguished from "author did not perform well", and the only evidence of performance we have is one "nice" performance review.

maxxxxx 8y ago
Agreed. Using the H word doesn't help the author's case.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
gpm 8y ago
- Left negative feedback for manager -> Prohibited to leave feedback by manager. - Required to work on weekends. - Denied some form of immigration benefits behind his back. - Told that his wife having a job has anything whatsoever with him being able to transfer. - The above being a lie. - Required to show up 4 hours before everyone else. - Punished for using sick days. I don't think any of the concrete concerns I listed above are subject to the authors interpretation. Short of the author lying they appear to be valid complaints.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  I hope he has written email records of all of these claims. If so I'm quite confident he'll have a strong court case.
  - kokokokoko 8y ago
    A strong court case for what? Washington is an "at will" employment state. You can be treated poorly and fired for any reason unless it is for a protected class(race, sex etc). Amazon and his manager could have fired him because they put a bunch of names on a dart board and his was the one hit. I do think the treatment was incredibly unfair and unjust. Unfortunately, in "at will" employment states in the US, this appears to be perfectly legal behavior. As shameful as that may be.
    - ashelmire 8y ago
      https://hkm.com/seattle/retaliation/ https://hkm.com/seattle/retaliation/ Most US states are at will; and people still win lawsuits against their employers quite often for just run of the mill toxic behavior, and not just for things as cut and dry as bigotry (although, being a visa holder, he may have a case for, especially since it was a part of these discussions - national origin and immigration status are protected classes).
      - kokokokoko 8y ago
        From the link > Retaliation is defined as any action taken against an employee for daring to file a discrimination or harassment claim And then for harassment: https://hkm.com/seattle/hostile-work-environment/ https://hkm.com/seattle/hostile-work-environment/ > Harassment in the workplace is a form of employment discrimination. Unlawful harassment is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and as such is illegal. Unfortunately harassment can come in many forms, both verbal and physical and can be based on any of the following forms of discrimination: > Race, Color, Religion, Sex, Sexual orientation, Age, Disability (mental or physical), Retaliation See above about "Retaliation" Is there something I'm missing in there? Because that again appears to only protect one from a protected class. It does not mean if your boss is being mean or insulting to you for things outside of those protected classes. But again, am I missing something in there that is different? Do you have an example of a civil or criminal case won by a plaintiff for "toxic behavior"? I'd be very interested in that, as that would mean the advice I've recieved from two diffent legal counsels I've contracted for advice. If you are correct, it appears I may have a civil claim against those attorneys.

maxxxxx 8y ago

Agreed. Using the H word doesn't help the author's case.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

gpm 8y ago

- Left negative feedback for manager -> Prohibited to leave feedback by manager. - Required to work on weekends. - Denied some form of immigration benefits behind his back. - Told that his wife having a job has anything whatsoever with him being able to transfer. - The above being a lie. - Required to show up 4 hours before everyone else. - Punished for using sick days. I don't think any of the concrete concerns I listed above are subject to the authors interpretation. Short of the author lying they appear to be valid complaints.

alexandercrohde 8y ago
I hope he has written email records of all of these claims. If so I'm quite confident he'll have a strong court case.
- kokokokoko 8y ago
  A strong court case for what? Washington is an "at will" employment state. You can be treated poorly and fired for any reason unless it is for a protected class(race, sex etc). Amazon and his manager could have fired him because they put a bunch of names on a dart board and his was the one hit. I do think the treatment was incredibly unfair and unjust. Unfortunately, in "at will" employment states in the US, this appears to be perfectly legal behavior. As shameful as that may be.
  - ashelmire 8y ago
    https://hkm.com/seattle/retaliation/ https://hkm.com/seattle/retaliation/ Most US states are at will; and people still win lawsuits against their employers quite often for just run of the mill toxic behavior, and not just for things as cut and dry as bigotry (although, being a visa holder, he may have a case for, especially since it was a part of these discussions - national origin and immigration status are protected classes).
    - kokokokoko 8y ago
      From the link > Retaliation is defined as any action taken against an employee for daring to file a discrimination or harassment claim And then for harassment: https://hkm.com/seattle/hostile-work-environment/ https://hkm.com/seattle/hostile-work-environment/ > Harassment in the workplace is a form of employment discrimination. Unlawful harassment is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and as such is illegal. Unfortunately harassment can come in many forms, both verbal and physical and can be based on any of the following forms of discrimination: > Race, Color, Religion, Sex, Sexual orientation, Age, Disability (mental or physical), Retaliation See above about "Retaliation" Is there something I'm missing in there? Because that again appears to only protect one from a protected class. It does not mean if your boss is being mean or insulting to you for things outside of those protected classes. But again, am I missing something in there that is different? Do you have an example of a civil or criminal case won by a plaintiff for "toxic behavior"? I'd be very interested in that, as that would mean the advice I've recieved from two diffent legal counsels I've contracted for advice. If you are correct, it appears I may have a civil claim against those attorneys.