Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I'm going to ask this as nicely as possible. Are you telling me that in each of these cases you knew that the stated reason was not a pretext? Or, was there enough there that the company did not want to even have the discussion (or more likely, have it made public)?
|
Absolutely not saying that. I can think of one example off the top of my head where there was discrimation on race and over-40 status. That guy went to the state and later reached a settlement with the firm’s EPL carrier. More common is the situation where there’s an open question about discrimination and whether it’s enough to get past a motion to dismiss (I’ve also handled cases for employees who were victims of discrimination, and won a six figure award for one).
Quote:
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
|
Nope. I don’t think anyone is intentionally gaming the system. I think there are objective standards for harassment and discrimination - we all learned about the reasonable person test in first year torts. What I am saying is that discrimination claims - valid and frivolous- often come up for the first time when an employee is let go.
And I think the test many lawyers use in looking at the validity of these claims is not whether discrimination or some sort took place, but whether the claim will satisfy what appears to becoming a higher standard under federal law. Heck, in the case I won, the employee was (among other things) “encouraged” to attend swinging parties with her boss. And that wasnt viewed as a valid claim, but his cutting her bonus for an arguable drop in production was. Go figure.
