4 ms·
That would certainly change things. Did they fire him pettily because they felt he didn't appreciate the party enough since he left? Or did his panic attack cau
by phreack 4y ago
That would certainly change things. Did they fire him pettily because they felt he didn't appreciate the party enough since he left? Or did his panic attack cause him to, say, punch someone in the face? There's so little detail in the article that one could imagine a scenario where firing the employee doesn't sound like a 100% asshole move.
- pseudalopex 4y agoHarder to imagine a scenario where firing the employee wasn't a 100% asshole move and the jury ruled in his favor though.
- moate 4y agoIf someone says "do not do this no job-function related thing, it will be bad for me" and you do that, there's very few reactions that I feel would not still be the company's fault. Someone wanted cake and some goof off time and was using this man's birthday to meet that want in spite of it causing him distress. Everything after that is because of this cause. "This guy physically attacked me after I chose, against warning, to put him in a panic state" is an admission of guilt not a deflection of blame in my mind. Pretty classic neuro-typical behavior tbh.
- spacemanmatt 4y agoHe didn't physically attack anyone. No violence was alleged nor evidenced.