New answers tagged

2

Usually, a clause like this is used in contracts of full time managerial or professional employees of a business who are employed on a salaried or commissioned, as opposed to an hourly basis, in positions that are exempt from overtime requirements. It basically prohibits moonlighting with a second job while employed at your current job. A non-competition ...


1

It basically means you're going to be expected to focus on your work while you're at work / on the clock and doing your work to the best of your ability. An occasional check of the phone might be ok once you've sussed out the culture but bringing in a personal laptop rings all sort of alarm bells (distraction, taking company information, misuse of company ...


3

Keep in mind how that mechanism works. This question coming up isn't a longshot: it will definitely come up when the employee applies for unemployment benefits. The employer pays a fraction of unemployment benefits, so they have a stake. A termination for cause leaves the employee ineligible for unemployment benefits. The employee will file claiming they ...


1

I agree with the other upvoted answers but would just like to add a bit of perspective. I've worked for several companies located in at-will states, and even though they have the right to terminate someone without providing a reason, in practice they have all tried very hard to document real performance shortcomings. This is because they are very aware that ...


0

It's just a fact of life that in practice there is often not enough evidence to "get justice." (Let alone the time and money.) I mean all forms of legal dispute, not just illegal termination. The point of the court system is not to get to the truth. It exists because when the truth is clear, we ought to take action. Ultimately, a lot of the time, ...


2

then why don't I make up some dumb whatever reason to fire the employee and thereby get away with discrimination? Because you have to convince a jury that the dumb reason you made up is more likely to be true than false. If this was a real obstacle, then almost all criminal convictions would be impossible. In almost all criminal cases, the prosecution has ...


37

There is a rather elaborate three step analysis that is done in civil rights cases under U.S. precedents. Circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence of discrimination (which is less frequently available to plaintiffs), is analyzed under a three-part test created by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). STEP ...


5

The reason to not make up a dumb cause for firing a person is that they will argue that you are discriminating on the basis of e.g. religion, and then the two sides will present their evidence. It is highly likely that if you have a hatred of the person's religion, you will have provided them with some kind of supporting evidence in the form of your behavior ...


-2

why don't I make up some dumb whatever reason to fire the employee and thereby get away with discrimination? Some employers actually try that, but that is illegal nonetheless. They resort to some pretext for the purpose of dissimulating their illegal motive, whether it is unlawful discrimination, retaliation, or against public policy. In that case, the ...


13

Indeed, in the United States, employees without a written employment contract generally can be fired for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all. The quickest answer would be that in cases where the employer has fired someone without due cause and they are indeed under no written contract, and their state does not protect them against such actions - and it ...


4

Not all jurisdictions allow you to fire without a valid reason. But even places that do, there is a lower standard of proof in civil cases. Lawsuits only require the judge or jury believe it is more likely than not that the firing was for a bad reason (unlike a criminal trial where the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”). If you hire a male employee who ...


0

I have experienced employers using web-based employee on-boarding processes where the employee fills out a form on a website like Zenefits or Gusto, instead of filling out the I-9 form. So yes, I think it is possible for the employee to complete Section 1 remotely. However, the employer's representative must still physically examine the List A or List B and ...


0

Of course that friend can sue, but is very unlikely to succeed. He hasn't been fired for using the n-word, but for using abusive language against someone because of their race. I expect a black employee would also be fired if they used abusive language against a white person, or an Asian person, or a Native American, because of their race. The fact that ...


3

Can a district rescind an offer of employment? Yes. Any contractural offer can be withdrawn so long as it has not been accepted. You did not accept it, so the withdrawal is legal. Can they hire someone who is not qualified ... That depends on the particular law that mandates the qualification. As a general principle, anyone is allowed to work at anything ...


0

It is highly likely that you misunderstood the principal, or the principal was mistaken, in making the offer. "Offers" from the principal / department head etc. are not generally actual offers because the principal is not authorized to make an offer, they are contingent on approval by the overseeing board. I assume the principal didn't give you a ...


6

Bostock is irrelevant. Your friend can sue under Burlington v. News Corp. Burlington answered this exact question ten years ago, using exactly the same, well-established logic used in Bostock. Burlington involved a news anchor (Burlington) who was fired after using the N-word descriptively in a staff meeting. He sued under Title VII. He argued he was being ...


0

The fact that "black employees regularly use such language and face no disciplinary action as a result" is evidence of race-based employment discrimination. If you insert "race" where Bostock v. Clayton County has "sex", you would get the result that consideration of race is forbidden. The sections of the anti-discrimination law ...


4

No I don't see a case under Bostok there. The N-word is not associated with sex or sexuality. Bostok can't help you unless it's a sexuality case. In this case, we have a firing because someone was a white Bigot. He used the N-word, which is an insult, just as "my melamine-enhanced homie over here" shows the same sentiment towards people of color. ...


-3

You could. However civil rights lawsuits of any kind have a low success rate. Especially in weak case like this. Source https://www.fastcompany.com/40440310/employees-win-very-few-civil-rights-lawsuits#:~:text=Over%20an%20even%20longer%20period,7%2C518%20cases%2C%20about%2014%25. Of the cases that go to trial, 95% favor the employer. Of course there could ...


2

It is not clear, until the parties make it clear, though individual states may have partially answered the question. There may be a requirement for the business to clearly delimit what they are laying claim to. So if there are clauses exempting works created by the employee wholely on their own time, not using company property including confidential trade ...


2

This (Canadian) article gives an overview of reference-letter liability. First, the writer has a duty of care to the subject of the letter. Both false statements and material omissions of true statements can cause harm, and the subject can sue over either. Stating that Smith was janitor when he was a vice president of the firm (in applying for a comparable ...


2

does a reference for a candidate employee have liability for what they say about the candidate? To my understanding lying isn't illegal. Lying is unlawful to the extent that the liar's deliberate intent to mislead other(s) causes or is likely to cause unwarranted harm. This is regardless of whether "the person acting as a reference isn't under ...


Top 50 recent answers are included