3 ms·
This literally makes no sense to me. In your view, what action could they have taken other than "letting him do whatever he wanted" that would not have been re
by DannyBee 8y ago
This literally makes no sense to me.
In your view, what action could they have taken other than "letting him do whatever he wanted" that would not have been retaliation?
Retaliation has the legal definition of a negative job action in response to a protected activity.
They explicitly found they did not do that.
Trying to redefine retaliation to include a negative job action in response to an unprotected activity makes the definition of retaliation include any negative job action in response to anything.
- drunkonpappy 8y agoOh! I did not know that retaliation had a legal definition. Super relevant here and apologies for not knowing that -- glad to have learned something today To reiterate, my gripe is not about anything "legal". Rather, my comments are focused on how our milieu responds to corporate actions A huge Q.E.D. for my point: my original comment got flagged!