First off: nice try, but I was the only manager at a multi-million dollar private retail establishment. No unions involved.
Second: private companies MUST have a legitimate, work related reason for firing people. The reason there are no cases against employers for firing people is because EVERYONE WHO GETS FIRED F***ED UP AT WORK. If you embarass or disagree with your boss AWAY from work, he cannot fire you for that. He CAN, on the other hand, track your every move while you ARE at work and find something to fire you for. The system is set up so personal disagreements don't end up in firings, unless said personal disagreements cause a disturbance in the work place. Believe me, I had to read through many binders of legal crap before I could legally fire the two people I did (for being high at work nonetheless!) If you think it works like you watch on The Apprentice, you have never fired anyone. On a positive note, it means you've probably never been fired either. Regardless, there was no actual firing in this case (although for some reason my computer crashed before I could read the whole link you posted...) so you're right, there will be no law suite...but if the boss had said "You embarassed me at the Republican convention so you're fired," then the employee would have every right to sue him.

 

Hahah, nice try me? "Multi million dollar private retail" means wal-mart, buddy. Costco is multi-million dollar private retail outfit too. Try again.

Now, you didn't read through legal crap...you read through company policy, which is not law, though it may be legally binding on the company. And, we can shoot back and forth all night about what's the law on this case, so I made it simple by asking for a specific example. Show me a case of a private company firing someone for offending the boss's associates, then getting successfully sued.

In case you didn't notice, that "multi-million dollar" retail almost certainly did some layoffs while you were with it. What do you think the reason was there? That's right: "We don't need you anymore." You don't have to submit financial reports to a court to remove a positiong you don't want to pay for, do you???

Note that in this case, there was lost time at work...but they're not even seeking damages for that in the complaint. The only complaint is against the executives who arrested them.

I'll keep checking for that case, but I'll say upfront, I'm not hopeful that you'll come back with it.

Edited to add some other funny examples of "multi million dollar private retail":

Target, Macy's, various Auto-dealers, home depot, Sam's Club, etc...can you add one more?

 

hahaha...you should get O'Reilly's job when he retires...you're good...but I worked for a SINGLE outlet...called the Bicycle Outfitter...made ~4.5 million/year selling bicycles, and I was the general manager. Anyway, the stuff I read wasn't company policy, they were documents from the gov't about legally firing people. If you do say the company needs downsizing, you have to have documentation that firing the person will result in a better economic situation for the company. This includes taking into account the positive aspects of the employee being there, not just 'I saved money because I don't have to pay him"
About the cases you requested: again, they don't exist because no employer is DUMB enough to fire someone based on a personal disagreement away from the work place. Hell, you can't even fire drug addicts unless you try to send them to rehab first and see if it works out. I'm curious why you think you're such an expert on firing people when it is obviously clear that you haven't done it before.


Edit: If what you're saying is true, then just BEING a democrat would be grounds from being fired from a job where the boss is republican. If that was the case, every work place in the country would be either all republican or all democrat. This clearly is not the case, and it is also clear that political beliefs, no matter how ferverently(sp?) they are displayed, are NEVER grounds for being fired.

 

Well, I learned about firing writing policy for a government agency. Now, I'm in law school....so, I'm waiting for the case. If something is a matter of law, there's a statute or a case. If there's not both, you can't really say what the law is in the first place. So, I'll accept a federal statute instead.

Waiting.

 

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/a...75304A83BC6543


That specific page, as well as other pages on this site, tell about when it is appropriate to fire someone. It is similar, if not the same document, that I read out of a binder a few years ago. I'm done arguing though. I have no doubt in my mind that I won't be able to change what you think, and you're sure as hell not going to change what I know from experience.

 

hahaha, nice job, you got a page with a list of the exceptions I referred to above.

Absent those, you are hired generally "at will", meaning, as long as it's not racism or likewise, you can be fired for whatever the manager wants. Look a little deeper.

Btw, that's a website, not a federal statute.

 

How many people have you fired Subaruguru?

Outside of work your free to do what you damn please. As long as it doesn't affect your performance at work, ie drug use etc... What your stating is that a person can get fired for their political views.

They where at a republican rally, showing that they did not support the candiate. How is that work related? (Yes, their boss gave them those tickets but where they there to represent the company, and getting paid to do so? NO, hence on there OWN time.) Isn't that a sort of discrimination of a worker? Do tell me thats legal... your crazy to believe thats legal to do this.

I'll call my friend that is in a law school up in Dallas after this week since she is busy and ask her what she thinks of this.

 

The boss can be as angry as he wants to be, the real question is were they being paid while meeting the individual by the company? If not then guess what he can't do ****. He can make their lives misserable but he can't fire them based on this. If he did he would have a lawyer at his doorstep.

 

Untrue. If it's private employment (which it wasn't in this specific case), employment is at the will of the employer. He can fire for anything he wants, as long as it isn't some sort of discrimination specifically prohibited by law.

There is NO private duty to keep people employed. None. Unless there's a contract saying how many years of work you are guaranteed and under what conditions, you've got zero legal grounds in these examples.

 

I think we're all confusing two different cases here: There's the FEMA case and then the boss donation case. But it's the same issue anyway.

Here's an example to clear this up for you: Say a bible-selling company hires an actor to go on its TV ads and sell bibles. No contract is involved that limits his outside of work activities nor does it specify guaranteed time of employment. It is an at will employment. In his own free time, he gives press conferences saying that it's his opinion that the bible is crap, and he's all for teaching atheism in schools.

The bible selling company fires him. He's done something in his own free time, spoken out only on his own opinion. Can he sue the bible sellers now??!

Of course, hypotheticals are irrelevant, because as your friend will tell you, private employment is at the will of the employer. Private employers don't need a reason to fire you. They just need to avoid firing you for limited civil rights reasons, but beyond that, "I don't like you" is ground enough for firing.

 

I don't think thats entirely true. But Im not a expert at this, your example is of a spokes person for the company, not just a regular employ. I think that is under a different aspect of the law since he is a direct representation of the company out side of "work". Pluss different labor laws for different states etc.

My point was is that it's not that cut and dry. A lot of employers do everything possible not to fire individuals since it includes a lot of paper work. My uncle runs the biggest in home patient care buisness in puerto rico and he always complains about this. Shrug.

 

Paperwork filed with who??? Corporate paperwork is common for corporations...that's internal procedure, not federal or state law.

And, my example was not for a "spokesman" 24 hours. Except by contract, you aren't "working" 24 hours for anything. There's no special law that says "unless your employee goes on tv, then you can fire him."

By your reasoning, would it be okay to fire the political protester if he gave an interview and said "hi, I'm joe shmo, I work for so and so, and I hate george bush"???

Waiting on cases/statutes.

Puerto rico is in a totally differnet legal situation. What your uncle does there doesn't really apply to what we do here in the 50 States.

 

Actually, thats not correct either.

The law says the employer doesn't have to give a reason for firing somebody. Thats completely different than firing somebody for any reason like you said.

It is illegal, however to fire somebody for a reason like political party affiliation.

 

But you're forgetting where she worked. FEMA is a nonpartisan federal agency and part of the U.S. part of the Department of Homeland Security . To have them keep a women like that on the payroll makes them appear partisan can could possibly taint their image like the ACLU.

I'm sure we're only hearing one side to the story... I'm sure there's a company policy stating that if you act like a moron you'll be fired. If I was her boss I would have fired her just as fast if she had worn a "Hanoi-Kerry" shirt at the DNC.

 

"Despite this relativity, most states agree that the following would violate public policy and would therefore be illegal:
terminating an employee for exercising a legal right (such as voting or other political activity)."

From
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/...D75304A83BC6543


While this is not a gov't page, it's purpose is to distil the state and federal laws concerning firing into an easy to comprehend page that employers can use as a resource (and since you claim you are studying law, Guru, it should be that much easier for YOU to understand).
Visiting a political debate and wearing a t-shirt that expresses ill-will towards the candidate would certainly qualify as "...exercising a legal right...such as...political activity," because there is no law against this anywhere in the US. So it IS DEFINATLY ILLEGAL TO FIRE SOMEONE ON THIS BASIS!!!


Edit:Funny side note: I was discussing this topic with an ex-roomate of mine who is very conservative (we used to debate politics constantly), and he agreed with me...there is NO WAY it is morally, ethically or legally ok to fire someone based on an incident like this.