4 ms·

I'm all for remote work in tech, but I also think it might be difficult to convince a court that "please come to work" is creating a hostile work environment.

by User23 4y ago

adoxyz 4y ago
I guess it depends on the circumstances. Like if they were told they could go full remote, and the employee moved out of state and settled down somewhere where there is no office, now to be told j/k get back in here, seems like a case could be made.
- elil17 4y ago
  There is no case to be made in the US unless the constructive dismissal was discriminatory in nature. It is legal to get people to quit by making working conditions worse, as long as you don't break any employment laws by doing so. Say that I want you some of my employees to quit. I say you are only allowed to have meetings while doing handstands, but I provide reasonable accommodation for disabled people who can't do handstands. If I fire you for not doing a handstand or if you quit because you don't want to do handstands, I have done nothing illegal under US law. Doesn't mean it's a good system. But that is the system we have.
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    Constructive dismissal is legal. The point is that if an employee can show that you changed the rules to make them quit, they get unemployment benefits.
  - lightbendover 4y ago
    Of course it’s discriminatory based on age, familial status, and disabilities. There’s data, just wait.
    - elil17 4y ago
      Unfortunately US courts have not been very receptive to disparate impact claims recently
- chartpath 4y ago
  Especially if they were hired with remote in their original agreement. Changing the location of work would necessitate some additional consideration and a new agreement.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
GauntletWizard 4y ago
Significant changes in job location absolutely do count. Forcing people to work from home would probably be enough to count, actually - If the employee objected. Forcing an employee who had promises about WFH availability to come into an office is going to be a slam dunk, for essentially zero gain - The damages will generally be too small to be worth it, at least in the US with at-will employment. But as a matter of labor law, it should be classified as a layoff.
- User23 4y ago
  Agreed on damages. It's been my limited experience that US lawyers won't even bother with such a case unless they think there is a very good chance of a jury awarding punitive damages. Which, practically speaking, is very rare and only happens in the most egregious of cases. I suppose it matters somewhat what the local jury pool is like, but generally if it isn't something absolutely flagrant and politically charged juries don't award punitive damages in these cases.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sam0x17 4y ago
"Please come to work where we can better surveil you for 100% of the day, penalize you based on sensitive activity signals and metrics, and better take away your privacy (spyware) and civil (going to the bathroom) rights."
uberduper 4y ago
I have numerous emails and messages from agents (recruiters) of the company assuring me that positions were fully remote. I was sent plenty of job descriptions that specifically stated they were fully remote positions. Maybe that means I would have been rif'd in one of the "okay we have to call it a layoff" layoffs before this policy tho.

I'm all for remote work in tech, but I also think it might be difficult to convince a court that "please come to work" is creating a hostile work environment.

by User23 4y ago

I'm all for remote work in tech, but I also think it might be difficult to convince a court that "please come to work" is creating a hostile work environment.

adoxyz 4y ago

I guess it depends on the circumstances. Like if they were told they could go full remote, and the employee moved out of state and settled down somewhere where there is no office, now to be told j/k get back in here, seems like a case could be made.

elil17 4y ago
There is no case to be made in the US unless the constructive dismissal was discriminatory in nature. It is legal to get people to quit by making working conditions worse, as long as you don't break any employment laws by doing so. Say that I want you some of my employees to quit. I say you are only allowed to have meetings while doing handstands, but I provide reasonable accommodation for disabled people who can't do handstands. If I fire you for not doing a handstand or if you quit because you don't want to do handstands, I have done nothing illegal under US law. Doesn't mean it's a good system. But that is the system we have.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  Constructive dismissal is legal. The point is that if an employee can show that you changed the rules to make them quit, they get unemployment benefits.
- lightbendover 4y ago
  Of course it’s discriminatory based on age, familial status, and disabilities. There’s data, just wait.
  - elil17 4y ago
    Unfortunately US courts have not been very receptive to disparate impact claims recently
chartpath 4y ago
Especially if they were hired with remote in their original agreement. Changing the location of work would necessitate some additional consideration and a new agreement.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

GauntletWizard 4y ago

Significant changes in job location absolutely do count. Forcing people to work from home would probably be enough to count, actually - If the employee objected. Forcing an employee who had promises about WFH availability to come into an office is going to be a slam dunk, for essentially zero gain - The damages will generally be too small to be worth it, at least in the US with at-will employment. But as a matter of labor law, it should be classified as a layoff.

User23 4y ago
Agreed on damages. It's been my limited experience that US lawyers won't even bother with such a case unless they think there is a very good chance of a jury awarding punitive damages. Which, practically speaking, is very rare and only happens in the most egregious of cases. I suppose it matters somewhat what the local jury pool is like, but generally if it isn't something absolutely flagrant and politically charged juries don't award punitive damages in these cases.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sam0x17 4y ago

"Please come to work where we can better surveil you for 100% of the day, penalize you based on sensitive activity signals and metrics, and better take away your privacy (spyware) and civil (going to the bathroom) rights."

uberduper 4y ago

I have numerous emails and messages from agents (recruiters) of the company assuring me that positions were fully remote. I was sent plenty of job descriptions that specifically stated they were fully remote positions. Maybe that means I would have been rif'd in one of the "okay we have to call it a layoff" layoffs before this policy tho.