As I return from an extended absence for the Thanksgiving holiday, my colleagues Gary Starr and Gabe Jiran share this alert about anonymous threats in the workplace based on a recent Circuit Court decision.
There’s been lots of talk lately about the Confederate flag and its symbolism in the aftermath of the Charleston shootings.
But I wondered: How has this flag come up in the context of employment discrimination cases?
It’s actually referenced a bunch according to a quick search by…
But did you know that fantasy football has led to all sorts of real issues in the workplace?
Well, longtime readers may remember an incident from five years…
Let’s try something a little new today: I’ll give you some facts and see if you can pick the result that a court or agency found. (Hat tip to Overlawyered for highlighting some of these issues.) I’ll give you the lesson learned from these cases at the end.
Used Car Salesman Loses Temper
1. Nick is hired in late August 2008 as a used car salesman (really). On the first day on the job, Nick worked in a tent sale and inquired about the bathroom facilities. The manager responded that it was in the store. The next week, when he asked if he could use the bathroom during tent sales, the manager responded “you’re always on break buddy … you just wait for customers all day”. He told Nick that he could leave if he did not like the employer’s policies. During the next tent sale, he asked other salespeople about the compensation policy. He also raised the issue of bathroom breaks as well.
At another tent sale (apparently, tent sales are very popular), Nick asked his manager about the commissions for a vehicle and thought the employer was stealing money from him in calculating his commissions. He then went to the state’s wage & hour agency to obtain more information about commission-based payments.
By October 2008, his manager met with Nick in private office saying that he had no intention of firing Nick but that he was “talking a lot of negative stuff” and asking too many questions. The manager also said that if Nick did not trust the employer, he didn’t need to work there. Nick then lost his temper calling the manager a “f–ing mother f–ing”, a “f—ing crook” and an “a–hole.” Nick also told the manager he was “stupid” and stood up, pushed his chair aside and told the manager that if he was fired, the manager would regret it.
Nick is then fired and brings a claim against his employer.
Will Nick win his claim?
a) No, yelling at his boss is “obscene and denigrating” and thus grounds to fire the employee, even if he did engage in some “protected” activity.
b) No, while he made threats against his boss, they were empty words and he did not engage in “protected” actvity anyways because mere discussions regarding compensation are not covered.
c) Yes, because Nick’s outburst was not menacing, physically aggressive or belligerent and he engaged in “protected” activity.
d) Yes, because the right to use a bathroom is protected under state law and Nick was right to be upset that his use was restricted.
Not every case that comes out from the Connecticut Appellate Court makes headlines.
It is a fairly ordinary discrimination case — albeit a rare one where the employer has been successful on a motion for summary judgment. It is also a textbook example of how slow the legal system can be, with the court decision coming eight years after the employee was fired.
The plaintiff was hired as a social worker in June 2004 and was notified that he needed to successfully complete a “ten month working west period.” His first performance review, about 10 weeks in, was generally favorable. By December, though, he was transferred to a new unit and was required to prepare documents to be filed in court and attend court proceedings.
This is most definitely NOT a political blog so I’ll leave it to others to figure out the political ramifications.
But what has yet to be…
If only all trial and deposition transcripts happened this quickly….
The Workplace Prof has the snap judgment which seems pretty on point from my initial scans:
I’ve skimmed it enough to see that there’s
While some matters get all the headlines, the work of the state and federal courts move on. One such case came out earlier this week and I highlight it because it touches on a point that employers sometimes lose sight of — the ability to still make subjective decisions and have that decision supported by…
Yesterday, I had seen some headlines at first about Attorney General Eric Holder’s comments discussing race, but had simply glossed over them. After all, it was a busy workday and well, was there going to be anything new?
But by late in the day, I received an e-mail from a former law professor of mine. …