3 ms·
> When the company threw him a lunchtime party against his wishes, it triggered a panic attack and he left abruptly to spend his break in his car. Four days lat
by timr 5y ago
> When the company threw him a lunchtime party against his wishes, it triggered a panic attack and he left abruptly to spend his break in his car. Four days later, after his office managers confronted him about his reaction to the party, he was fired from the Northern Kentucky company, court records show.
The headline sounds ridiculous, but this detail explains everything. Getting fired because you had a panic attack in response to an optional thing you explicitly told them not to do? That's lunacy.
- hnmullany 5y ago
- duxup 5y ago"People have strong opinions on how other people should behave." Humans do.
- serf 5y ago>Humans do. Given, but it's understood that certain places have narrower ranges of 'perceived acceptable behavior', no? Simply stated: I would get less odd stares while on my unicycle on the streets of San Francisco than I would elsewhere. (no, I can't ride a unicycle :( )
- ARandomerDude 5y agoYeah, thankfully Californians have no such opinions.
- dartharva 5y ago> That's Kentucky for you. People have strong opinions on how other people should behave. I don't think there's any place on earth where this doesn't apply.
- cjbgkagh 5y agoEver not recycle in front of a German?
- perihelions 5y ago"Man fired over panic attack wins wrongful dismissal suit" would be a much clearer headline (and no one would click on it).
- beaned 5y agoThe article also makes a brief mention of some type of violence, but curiously does not elaborate on it.
- colpabar 5y agoYeah I noticed this too, and I think they're actually referring to his panic attack? I guess I can't say for sure but if that's the case I hope he somehow sues them again and they go bankrupt.
- timr 5y agoUnclear. It says later he had a panic attack upon being confronted over the previous panic attack, and that he was fired after this second panic attack. The quote about the employees acting appropriately for office safety sounds like this second event was interpreted as violence of some sort. We weren't there so we can't know, but it's one of those things where the overall picture makes the jury decision seem likely to be reasonable.
- tedunangst 5y agoProbably bumped into somebody blocking the door on the way out.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- duxup 5y agoThis reads like they knew they fucked up and responded by trying to make the other guy "the problem". What a bizarre and totally avoidable situation.
- slg 5y agoThis would be like if an employee told their boss they were allergic to peanuts, their boss knowing giving them food with peanuts, and then firing them when their allergic reaction caused too much of a scene. It is an open-and-shut case and I'm glad the employee got some form of compensation for their employer carelessly putting them through this.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]