I think the most charitable read of the article is that he was not actually working less hours for the same pay. My read was: - he alleges his productivity did

I think the most charitable read of the article is that he was not actually working less hours for the same pay. My read was: - he alleges his productivity didn't change - his availability changed due to the unpredictability of his children's needs, but "he always made up the time he spent helping his sons, he said" - he believed this was OK: "especially considering messages from upper management noting that parents with school-aged children shouldn’t be penalized" - he alleges his direct manager was unresponsive to his communication about the change in his personal circumstances -- one imagines that he was hoping she would work with him to figure out a path forward that worked for all parties These are just claims in a lawsuit that are yet to be tested in court. It seems to me like it's quite possible three things are true: (1) Wayfair had the right to fire him, (2) Wayfair shouldn't have fired him, and (3) even if they should have fired him, they handled it poorly.