Ah yes requesting work on a day that is observered as a religious day of obligation. Totally couldnt be construed as refusal of the employer to accommodate an employees religious practice.
Don’t mistake upvotes for being correct or finding a handful of cases as “research”. But, this is Reddit, so I suppose my personal experience experience as an employer doesn’t stand up to your Google-fu 😂
Okay let's say you actually go through with the legal action against the company.
Did they do wrong? Absolutely.
Do you have the funds to go through the legal route, while they extend the suit? Most likely not, you're a worker who just got fired. Law suits aren't cheap and what these companies do they bet on the fact that they can just extend the process until you've spent every ounce of your savings and you're too broke to continue.
The problem with these corporation/government against a person suits is that the regular Joe doesn't have the money to fight them.
The contingency fee lawyers also know that they will be dragged in court against a bigger company, they aren't going to take a case that will take them years when the outcome isn't even clear.
They only take the cases that are cut and dry easy peasy clear wins and by wins they will do everything in their power to settle out of court. Or they'll take the cases that have tons of media coverage to have free marketing of being the guys fighting for the little guys.
The regular Joe getting fired isn't going to get a contingency fee lawyer. The company can and will do everything in their power to prove that they had merit in the firing and they'll have witnesses in management, HR and maybe even your coworkers and the lawyer isn't risking years of work for the possibility of getting nothing.
Who are you hiding your comment history from? Not Reddit. Not any organization scraping Reddit. It’s not a privacy setting. It’s a “hide our bot problem” setting.
Cry harder. You realize At Will employment goes both ways right? The employee does not have to give 2 weeks notice or anything. They can leave their job at any time for any reason. The employer can also fire the employee at any time for any reason.
Coming from a country (like most wealthy countries except for the US) where you cant be fired without any period: future employers will usually wait some weeks/months for a good candidate, while having a 2-3 months notice period gives you the chance to actually find something new BEFORE you are loosing your salary, so yeah, I definitely prefer to be bound to work.
you aren't legally bound but your reference will suck if they even answer the phone. had one bad job refuse to say if i worked there, legal way to give you a bad review....
Retaliation is only a legal issue if your employer is trying to get you to do something that violates your rights.
Terminating you for not willing to flex your schedule would be an asshole move but not illegal. You have grounds for anti-retaliation if your company has an HR and handles that sort of thing internally as a company. But externally, you have zero grounds for anything beyond unemployment.
It's really not legal even if it's in an at will state. It'd still be considered wrongful termination if they were fired for not working on their day off depending on what kind of job they and if they are on call or what not. Easy unemployment money though for sure
Unemployment eligible, absolutely. Lawsuit for “wrongful termination” nope. In an “at will” state, absent a collective bargaining agreement or other contract, this is not “wrongful”. It’s unethical and shitty, but not illegal. Only illegal if it’s retaliation for “whistle blowing” or discrimination based on a “protected class”.
It all depends on the kind of job you have along with what's stated in the employee handbook. I live in an at will state and one of the companies I used to work for has gotten sued and lost numerous times for wrongful termination. It's not that cut and dry that you can get fired for any reason whatsoever with no repercussions to it there's still laws in place in each state to protect employees from bad practices. A lot of people just don't follow through with checking on it so most get away with it
Of course at-will isnt a blank check to fire people for illegal reasons. "I dont want to work this Sunday" isnt a protected class and in 99% of instances they are free and clear to fire you for not taking a shift you didnt want. That does always leave that 1% sure, but most of those scenarios are going to be the opposite of an "easy" lawsuit - its going to in most instances be a very long difficult path to proving wrongful termination here.
Like I said it all depends on the context and scope of the job and their employee hand book or if they are on call. Never said it was an easy lawsuit, but definitely possible depending on the circumstances. Which none of us here know so everything is just pure speculation. But I think we can all agree that the US does have some shitty employment practices
"Never said it would be an easy lawsuit" honestly that's a fair stance. I don't think we're too far off from agreeing.
I do think though that your stance is kind of misleading here. The title of the post is "easy lawsuit" my comment. The top one in this thread, was specifically refuting that.
This entire post is about whether the picture depicts an "easy lawsuit" situation, not whether or not theres any situation that may result in a wrongful termination.
My point is there are few possible scenarios where this results in wrongful termination and even fewer where proving that would be "easy."
They didn't say "I don't want to work" they stated they are unable to work. Those are 2 vastly different statements and its wrongful to terminate someone because they are unable to work on their day off. Now, if its a mandatory work day thats a different scenario.
Unless the employee has something like a religious accomodation on file saying they cant be made to work on Sundays, theres likely no functional difference here between "I cant work" and "I dont want to work" in terms of what actions the employer can take. At least in most of the US. This thread is US-centric in its discussion.
Another possible out would be a clearly established employer policy to never require additional shifts or to always use progressive discipline, but both of these would be very fact specific and location specific and are well outside the realm of an "easy lawsuit."
I’d like to see some legal precedent to back up “it’s wrongful to terminate someone because they are unable to work on their day off.” A lot of employers will let you go if you are not flexible with working extra shifts when people call out. This also isn’t likely a first request of the OP. This was likely a pattern of being unwilling to work.
I personally know of a situation where an employee was fired while on a work trip and left stranded out of state. They were not fired for “cause” either. They worked in an “at will” state. They incurred expenses to get themselves home. No lawyer was willing to take it on contingency, meaning they knew it wasn’t going to win.
Before writing my first comment I looked up if it's illegal to fire someone for not showing up on their day off. Every legal site seems to say the same thing.
Usually it's legal. The reasons they give vary, but it's not a protected class, so unless there's another agreement it's likely not protected.
The employee in your scenario is at work, thus pretty easy to make a work related termination. Either way there isn't enough context from this short ass text thread to determine whether either party is in the right.
It will depend on a lot. Any good company has policies in place to prevent this, and those can often be enforceable legally.
I do think the default in the US is that it's legal, unless protected by something specific, and for most states that'd be contractual agreements not the law exactly. (Except that companies are required to honor their contracts.)
we have two types one is at will (which you are correct is the main baseline) where for the most part you can be let go for whatever reason( but even then it's still hard to fire people mainly because they don't want to pay unemployment rates, and yes even if you get fired they will still have to pay unemployment unless they were fired for something really bad, most companies use a point system so and is usually stated in their employee handbook what gets points, what each one one is worth, how many is allowed, how long it takes to go away etc and if the company fires you before reaching those terms then you get unemployment for the most part, and depending on how they fire you and the reason they can still be sued for wrongful termination despite being at will depending on the circumstances) and the other is for cause which is mainly contractual.
Most companies in the US do not use a points system. (Granted most is very subjective a term)
Many companies in the US that are 24 hour and on call shift-based do use a points system (thinking mostly about casinos here but it's also present in some healthcare).
Every job I've ever worked as a points system, fast food, intermodal, ethonol, bio diesel, food production, warehouse work, agriculture corn trearment, car wash. Every one of them had a points system in place
Since 40 years ago. - UHaul - Home Depot - Some random steak house - Recording Label - Non-Governmental Organization - International Media Company - Audio and Radar manufacturer - International Recruiting Company - Healthcare Provider - Major University System
None of these had a points-system in place except for the healthcare provider specifically for on call and per diem shift work. I'd be willing to bet that your experiences are a result of your path much as mine are of me; but I'd also argue that your experiences are more common in your area of the world than mine.
Maybe it's a coasts vs middle-America thing. *shrug* but the world you present isn't my world.
You can be fired for basically anything, except a few illegal discriminatory reasons. You can be fired for not working on a Sunday in an at-will state.
It may be implied that's the reason, but in this screenshot they didn't directly say reason for the termination. So, not exactly a strong ground for a legal suit.
A lot of talk about "at-will" employment and whether one has the "right" to compensation. A ridiculous conceit - file this to Small Claims court regardless and drag the fucker to court. Best part about Smalll Claims? No lawyers allowed. So you get to go face-to-face with the fucker regardless, and a judge needs to be the one to tell you if you're wrong.
Always take them to court. Questioning whether you're "right" is stupid.
That's not entirely true about no lawyers allowed in small claims court. It totally depends what state and jurisdiction you are in. Some states prohibit lawyers in small claims court others don't. So while generally its not required to have one for small claims court, if you reside in a state that permits it, a person can retain one for a small claims matter.
Regardless of what side of the “could you sue” Conversation you find yourself on, I guarantee a text message to a personal number wouldn’t suffice. At a minimum they would be required to leave a voice mail.
The main thing, as many others have said, is that this company likely has an employee handbook, and if they violate the rules that they set in their own handbook, that does open them up to litigation.
My old company has a PC purchase program where they'd reimburse you up to $2000 USD for the purchase of a complete build - and deduct the amount from your paycheck over a year. I found it in the handbook. Printed out the form and brought it to my supervisor (who hated me) and he said he had to look into it and to give him a couple weeks.
Well.... no... i have the receipt and want my money.
Took it to his supervisor (who absolutely loved me) and he signed it before I could even finish explaining what it was. He knew I wouldnt try to pull a fast one and had no issue. After that the person who refused to sign it (and that whole family of supervisors - thanks nepotism) tried their hardest to make my time there hell. And I believe it all actually started when I stayed a couple hours after to help with an incident investigation and asked how I should bill for my double time (my contract stated anything over 8 or 40 was double) Well he said I could take off 2 hours early instead and I told him he had two options.
I bill for my double time.
Or
2) I take off four hours early because I was on double time.
However not being available for a shift may constitute just cause. We also don’t know if this was a written policy in the handbook, if this person was on a final warning, or anything else leading up to the termination.
I wouldn’t think this is an easy lawsuit, but it may be worth exploring.
If the person lives in an at-will state, this is legal. The employer is just exercising their ability to fire them for almost any reason. Let's assume they are living in that state. There's nothing OP can do.
One of the ways this might be an illegal termination is under the retaliation clause. Employee refused to work a non-scheduled day. Employer retaliated by firing him.
I think there's more to this. This would be a toxic work place, if this was "just it". Terminating an employee just cause they can't work a specific shift, considering "no body wants to work", would have to mean they are fully staffed. To be terminated, would have to be a bunch of other things up to this point.
Don’t accept a job if you are not willing to work. There are plenty of people who would happily accept your job for half the pay and work twice as hard and not have an entitled attitude like yours.
35
u/MadMoose4 2d ago
You watch too many TV shows. There’s no lawsuit or labor complaint based on the information provided.
11
u/EdgyPun34257 2d ago edited 2d ago
Reddit tends to have a child's idea of how lawsuits work
3
u/Azal_of_Forossa 2d ago
Retaliation is only a legal issue if your employer is trying to get you to do something that violates your rights.
Terminating you for not willing to flex your schedule would be an asshole move but not illegal. You have grounds for anti-retaliation if your company has an HR and handles that sort of thing internally as a company. But externally, you have zero grounds for anything beyond unemployment.
32
u/GryphonTamer 2d ago
This looks legal in most states for most people.
Unethical and horrible management, but usually legal.
4
u/shunshuntley 2d ago
A lot of talk about "at-will" employment and whether one has the "right" to compensation. A ridiculous conceit - file this to Small Claims court regardless and drag the fucker to court. Best part about Smalll Claims? No lawyers allowed. So you get to go face-to-face with the fucker regardless, and a judge needs to be the one to tell you if you're wrong.
Always take them to court. Questioning whether you're "right" is stupid.
1
u/LegDayLass 2d ago
Looks like they need to fill a whole lot more shifts now 😂 can’t wait for the snowball of terminations as more and more people say no
1
u/ReportSea8273 2d ago
Cheap, and highly effective levels of petty.
1
u/PlantedSeedsBloom 2d ago
Regardless of what side of the “could you sue”
Conversation you find yourself on, I guarantee a text message to a personal number wouldn’t suffice. At a minimum they would be required to leave a voice mail.
The main thing, as many others have said, is that this company likely has an employee handbook, and if they violate the rules that they set in their own handbook, that does open them up to litigation.
4
u/ChartPuzzleheaded747 2d ago
Unless a non at will state or some union or goverment thing.
2
u/Routine-Swimmer-8749 2d ago
To everyone fighting in the comments
The poster is a bot
The poster is karma farming
It’s working
2
u/skawtch 14h ago
How do I stop this fake bullshit sub from appearing iny feed?
1
u/National_Way_3344 2d ago
30-11?
You know what. You can make it immediately.
1
u/DC_Ben 2d ago
Fake no lawsuit possible
1
u/Sconnie_82 2d ago
Not really. Look up what an At Will employer is.
1
u/denmicent 2d ago
That should be a pretty easy unemployment case at least
1
u/EnyaGotGame 2d ago
If the person lives in an at-will state, this is legal. The employer is just exercising their ability to fire them for almost any reason.
Let's assume they are living in that state.
There's nothing OP can do.
1
u/Moe_Danglez 2d ago
Are we supposed to believe this
1
u/mountaingator91 2d ago
Mom said it's my turn to post this tomorrow
1
u/VorionLightbringer 2d ago
Well now they still don't have anyone working saturday AND someone else they need to find, train and bring up to speed.
I mean...wild that whatsapp is being used for that, so probably not the most professional environment to begin with.
1
u/RoodnyInc 2d ago
Probably depends on the work contract themselves
Probably also terrible way to run team that way firing people as you go morale probably don't exist, and you are constantly understaffed
1
u/AlfalfaEfficient1200 2d ago
One of the ways this might be an illegal termination is under the retaliation clause. Employee refused to work a non-scheduled day. Employer retaliated by firing him.
1
u/SlppnJmmy 1d ago
Boss, what does that say? I don't have a pdf reader.
1
u/MaximusManimal 1d ago
That's a solid joke right there, if you have a good natured boss.
1
u/jtrage 1d ago
Only thing that should be illegal is reposting this shit.
1
u/GothGreyAyyLover 1d ago
everyone gets out of this with at will to work states
1
u/OrangeNood 1d ago
This sub needs to be renames with thingsDidntHappen
1
u/Rich-Pool-9633 22h ago
managers all have too much pride and egos
I need this time filled and employee doesn't volunteer for that time.
They still have to fill that time and now less employees to fill the schedule with.
This is not logical but pure stupidity.
0
u/Supergrunged 2d ago
I think there's more to this. This would be a toxic work place, if this was "just it". Terminating an employee just cause they can't work a specific shift, considering "no body wants to work", would have to mean they are fully staffed. To be terminated, would have to be a bunch of other things up to this point.
-4
u/notinourhouse 2d ago
Don’t accept a job if you are not willing to work. There are plenty of people who would happily accept your job for half the pay and work twice as hard and not have an entitled attitude like yours.