4 ms·
>The trial court noted that a $150,000 salary compared favorably with the current salaries of US District Court Judges, US Senators and Members of the House of
by dchftcs 4y ago
>The trial court noted that a $150,000 salary compared favorably with the current salaries of US District Court Judges, US Senators and Members of the House of Representatives ($174,000 per year); US Magistrate Judges ($160,080 per year); and military personnel below two-star generals with 15 years of service (all of whom earn less than $150,000 per year in base pay) (citations omitted).
This kind of judgement is incredibly unprofessional.
- alasdair_ 4y ago> This kind of judgement is incredibly unprofessional The judge that wrote the opinion deserves to be paid less than $150,000 a year.
- Retric 4y agoIt was also reversed on appeal, which is one reason why the appeal process exists.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- duxup 4y agoSeriously that reads like some Facebook meme about someone getting paid “to much” and so on.
- llanowarelves 4y agoIt's also not reflective of their true compensation. The main way you get paid as a senator or house rep isn't salary. They're not going in with nothing and ending up with tens of millions of dollars on salary through savings.
- llanowarelves 4y agoDownvoted by bleeding-heart [lobbyist/revolving door/kickback/insider trading] sympathizers. Will someone think of the poor conglomerates and the suffering decamillionaires in congress?
- chomp 4y agoIt's less outrageous than it sounds, just a face reading and one judge's interpretation of the law - the linked article does a poor job of providing context. >An employee is constructively discharged when his employer, rather than discharging him directly, inten-tionally creates a work atmosphere so intolerable that he is forced to quit involuntarily. Kirsch v. Fleet St., Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 161 (2d Cir. 1998); Chertkovav. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir. 1996). We have explained that working conditions are intolerable when, viewed as a whole, they are "so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee's shoes would have felt compelled to resign." Chertkova, 92 F.3d at 89 (quotations omitted). Using the above framework, the judge determined that a reasonable person would not find a 150k/yr salary "to be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive work environment." when 150k/yr is a really good salary. Reasonable person tests are always a judgment call. I disagree with this judgment call, but I don't think it's an unprofessional one.
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoAny "reasonable" "professional" judgement needs to take into account the financial situation of the individual, not the financial situation of others. If my salary was reduced by a little less than 1/3rd, I'd have a couple of hundred dollars left over each month after mandatory deductions, rent, and utilities. I'd effectively starve. And yet my salary would still be slightly above the national average salary. This sort of reasonableness standard is why the spouses and children of very rich people get millions of dollars a year in alimony and child support.
- chomp 4y agoI'll agree with that. And the appeals court agreed too, that you have to look at all of the facts (percentage, repeated suggestions that he could resign, reduction in responsibilities, loss of title). Though I don't think they can use the "I have a lot of bills" argument, as the finances of Mr. Scott aren't relevant in the constructive discharge law.
- 4y ago
- AmericanChopper 4y agoI don’t see how that is relevant at all. Isn’t the central aspect of the controversy that one party modified the terms of the contact without the consent of the other party? The linked article doesn’t have much detail, but it just seems like a simple contract violation to me…