sanitation@lemmy.radio to me_irl@lemmy.world · 17 days agoMe_irllemmy.radioimagemessage-square61linkfedilinkarrow-up1723arrow-down15
arrow-up1718arrow-down1imageMe_irllemmy.radiosanitation@lemmy.radio to me_irl@lemmy.world · 17 days agomessage-square61linkfedilink
minus-squareJcbAzPx@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down1·16 days agoThey should sue. Even at will doesn’t let you fire for illegal reasons and that’s an illegal reason. Employment attorneys take cases on contingency and live for these sort of slam dunk, easy win cases.
minus-squaredream_weasel@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down1·16 days agoYou would still have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your firing was due to the salary discussion and not something else. It’s like when a cop wants to pull you over: if they follow you long enough you’ll make enough of a mistake for the pretense.
minus-squareJcbAzPx@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·15 days agoNo, this would be a civil suit, so it’s just preponderance of the evidence. Not hard to meet that for a case like this.
minus-squareCrescent@fedinsfw.applinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·15 days agoLast guy who tried this was accused of stealing and got into huge trouble despite there being no proof.
They should sue. Even at will doesn’t let you fire for illegal reasons and that’s an illegal reason. Employment attorneys take cases on contingency and live for these sort of slam dunk, easy win cases.
You would still have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your firing was due to the salary discussion and not something else.
It’s like when a cop wants to pull you over: if they follow you long enough you’ll make enough of a mistake for the pretense.
No, this would be a civil suit, so it’s just preponderance of the evidence. Not hard to meet that for a case like this.
Last guy who tried this was accused of stealing and got into huge trouble despite there being no proof.