Court docs said ... > 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 h

Court docs said ... > 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 Julie Brazil, the founder and [COO] said ... > My employees de-escalated the situation to get the plaintiff out of the building as quickly as possible while removing his access to the building, alerting me and sending out security reminders to ensure he could not access the building, which is exactly what they were supposed to do, we have a zero-tolerance policy and we stand by our decision to terminate the plaintiff for his violation of our workplace violence policy. The plantiff's lawyer said ... > I believe (he) was so happy and relieved that the jury recognized that he was not some violent and menacing person and that it was not okay for Gravity Diagnostics to just assume that he was without any evidence to support those misconceptions. So the case seems less about > @manager please can we not have a birthday party for me please and more about the > @employee you're fired for being violent even though we do not have evidence to back this statement up ... Whole article smells to me like the company blaming the employee for something he warned them about anyway, but that's just my opinion.