3 ms·
No, history has shown about 95% of the time employers prevail in actions like this. The burden of proof is really high for the employee, and the company has ple
by fargle 7y ago
No, history has shown about 95% of the time employers prevail in actions like this. The burden of proof is really high for the employee, and the company has plenty of money for lawyers. It can simply run out the clock too. So yeah, 23 years from now after the ex-engineer spends 2.6 million on legal fees, she might win her job back and lost wages.
Furthermore, google has a really easy time with "selective enforcement" They can show that people violating security rules and abusing administrative rights are always fired. Now, she can argue she didn't do this, but because of the nature of our legal system, it will be extremely hard to explain. I main, disgruntled employee abusing security? Whoever heard of such a thing. The civil judge will probably help google refer her to the FBI!
- SilasX 7y agoSaying that selective enforcement is hard to prove is different from saying it doesn't matter, which you were originally claiming, and which is what I was disputing. >They can show that people violating security rules and abusing administrative rights are always fired. Yes, that agrees with what I was saying: if every message thusly inserted resulted in a firing, then it would not be fair to say she got fired "for notifying employees of their right to organize".