Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
And to bring this back to the original point, you're telling me that the danger of not having clear objective standards as to what constitutes harassment (or, as it seems based on your response, discrimination) that we are in danger of people of a protected class gaming the system for that sweet, sweet two-weeks worth of salary severance cash?
TM
|
He may not be, but I will. Because it's not just two weeks.
These things tend to come up where people are fired for cause (doing something willfully wrong, or being seriously incompetent). The person's first concern is whether the employer will challenge an unemployment claim, as people fired for gross job failures or willful behavior can be barred from collecting unemployment benefits.
A good HR person almost always agrees not to challenge. But sometimes, they will (or management will make them do so). That's often the catalyst for the fired person to get a lawyer. Once that happens, the discussion shifts from unemployment to whatever facts the lawyer can suggest offer enough to file a claim.
The issue of whether there's really a claim, or that the termination was based on a pretext, which is almost never the case with people fired for cause, never arises. As you'd expect, the negotiation is about whether there's enough to cause embarrassment to the employer and possibly get an EEOC investigation initiated.
I initiated an EEOC claim way back when that ultimately resulted in a seven figure settlement. It was not a valid claim. There was no discrimination. But the defense would've had to prove a complex set of coincidences to defend the case. The reality was, yes, those coincidences had aligned, and had created what looked like ironclad discrimination. I didn't even spot the coincidences until after the filing.
But no one would ever believe the defense. So the employer wrote a check.
