4 ms·

Okay, again, I'm uninformed: How is anyone supposed to establish WHY a company does something? The rule says, "For example, depending on the facts, it could be

Okay, again, I'm uninformed: How is anyone supposed to establish WHY a company does something? The rule says, "For example, depending on the facts, it could be retaliation if an employer acts because of the employee's EEO activity to..." The word because bewilders me here. Who knows why anyone does anything? I don't know why I do 90% of what I do. If someone accused me of having tuna for lunch because of someone's EEO activity, how could I possibly prove they were wrong?

Jasper_ 7y ago
When you run a multi-billion dollar company, you need to know why you do 90% of what you do. If you don't, you can talk about it with people called "lawyers" who can tell you whether it's a good idea or a bad one before you do it. They demoted two employees who were highly performing, weren't told otherwise, but coincidentally highly instrumental in organizing and staging protests. Doesn't take a genius to figure out why they were forcibly transferred.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  > Doesn't take a genius to figure out why they were forcibly transferred. This doesn't meet the standards for burden of proof.
  - azernik 7y ago
    As lmkg mentioned at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19721225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19721225 - the burden of proof in civil cases is "preponderance of the evidence". This kind of information can easily clear the bar.
tartuffe78 7y ago
I would guess it would go like this: 1. Fired employee sues employer 2. During discovery, fire employees lawyer requests all documentation/emails/performance reviews for employee 3. Lawyer tries to show proof there was no other reason for the firing.
lmkg 7y ago
The same way that you "prove" anything in the legal system: Present your case in front of a jury, while your opponent has the chance to rebut your claims. Keep in mind that the legal standard for civil claims is "more likely than not," as opposed to the more famous "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard that is used for criminal cases. So, you'll go up at trail and present a bunch of data points, and build a narrative around those data points. Look, you say, I had good reviews from my managers and glowing recommendations from my co-workers. Despite this, I was fired shortly after I Did A Thing. Is this a coincidence or retaliatory? Your employer would attempt to provide evidence that your work quality actually dropped off, you would attempt to present evidence that either the quality stayed the same, or else that goalposts were moved for no good reason. Note that both parties have the ability to compel various types of evidence to be produced. You would be able to subpeona the employer for emails between bosses, or manager notes, or reviews and such. You could be able to compel people to testify around a variety of facts. ... if this process sounds rather onerous, now you know why trials take a long time and many parties prefer to settle privately rather than engage in the full court process.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > as opposed to the more famous "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard that is used for criminal cases. Curiously, this is a standard that isn't well understood. It's "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "any doubt whatsoever". You saw it a lot in some of the Bitcoin cases (Silk Road)... "Well, they can't prove that he wasn't set up or that the wallet matching his wasn't entirely a coincidence, (crypto signatures be damned), so there's doubt, and he should be acquitted".
pmoriarty 7y ago
"How is anyone supposed to establish WHY a company does something?" There could be an email trail, or testimony from witnesses to conversations in which the motivations were discussed. That's direct evidence. There could also be indirect evidence, for example, if there was a pattern of firing employees directly after they participated in protected activities.
dekhn 7y ago
often there is a paper trail. When IBM fires a lot of old people, they make sure to have 6 months of negative performance reviews. Google's way is to make it hard to work on the projects you enjoy working on so it eventually becomes less painful to just leave.
DanBC 7y ago
> How is anyone supposed to establish WHY a company does something? Courts deal with mens rea and actus rea every day. They look at the evidence and see if it meets the burden of proof.

Jasper_ 7y ago

When you run a multi-billion dollar company, you need to know why you do 90% of what you do. If you don't, you can talk about it with people called "lawyers" who can tell you whether it's a good idea or a bad one before you do it. They demoted two employees who were highly performing, weren't told otherwise, but coincidentally highly instrumental in organizing and staging protests. Doesn't take a genius to figure out why they were forcibly transferred.

throwawaysea 7y ago
> Doesn't take a genius to figure out why they were forcibly transferred. This doesn't meet the standards for burden of proof.
- azernik 7y ago
  As lmkg mentioned at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19721225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19721225 - the burden of proof in civil cases is "preponderance of the evidence". This kind of information can easily clear the bar.

tartuffe78 7y ago

I would guess it would go like this: 1. Fired employee sues employer 2. During discovery, fire employees lawyer requests all documentation/emails/performance reviews for employee 3. Lawyer tries to show proof there was no other reason for the firing.

lmkg 7y ago

The same way that you "prove" anything in the legal system: Present your case in front of a jury, while your opponent has the chance to rebut your claims. Keep in mind that the legal standard for civil claims is "more likely than not," as opposed to the more famous "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard that is used for criminal cases. So, you'll go up at trail and present a bunch of data points, and build a narrative around those data points. Look, you say, I had good reviews from my managers and glowing recommendations from my co-workers. Despite this, I was fired shortly after I Did A Thing. Is this a coincidence or retaliatory? Your employer would attempt to provide evidence that your work quality actually dropped off, you would attempt to present evidence that either the quality stayed the same, or else that goalposts were moved for no good reason. Note that both parties have the ability to compel various types of evidence to be produced. You would be able to subpeona the employer for emails between bosses, or manager notes, or reviews and such. You could be able to compel people to testify around a variety of facts. ... if this process sounds rather onerous, now you know why trials take a long time and many parties prefer to settle privately rather than engage in the full court process.

FireBeyond 7y ago
> as opposed to the more famous "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard that is used for criminal cases. Curiously, this is a standard that isn't well understood. It's "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "any doubt whatsoever". You saw it a lot in some of the Bitcoin cases (Silk Road)... "Well, they can't prove that he wasn't set up or that the wallet matching his wasn't entirely a coincidence, (crypto signatures be damned), so there's doubt, and he should be acquitted".

pmoriarty 7y ago

"How is anyone supposed to establish WHY a company does something?" There could be an email trail, or testimony from witnesses to conversations in which the motivations were discussed. That's direct evidence. There could also be indirect evidence, for example, if there was a pattern of firing employees directly after they participated in protected activities.

dekhn 7y ago

often there is a paper trail. When IBM fires a lot of old people, they make sure to have 6 months of negative performance reviews. Google's way is to make it hard to work on the projects you enjoy working on so it eventually becomes less painful to just leave.

DanBC 7y ago

> How is anyone supposed to establish WHY a company does something? Courts deal with mens rea and actus rea every day. They look at the evidence and see if it meets the burden of proof.