The employer has rules for employees. This specific employee made a decision to break one or more of these rules. The employee was terminated as he chose to break the rules of his employer. Such actions typically have consequences.rp_photo wrote:As I see it, the problem is too much hiding behind " Liability issues".
Now, hypothetically, let's say the employer goes against its previously applied rules, and cuts this guy a break. He's a good guy, and he did a good thing, even though he broke the rules, etc.
Now the next employee, who is a member of a protected class, and who carries a firearm onto the premise, and who doesn't do it to stop a robbery, is next to be terminated. That employee claims disparate treatment, and discrimination, based upon membership in a protected class. That employee sues and wins.
Now, in that worst case scenario, someone, but clearly none of us, will have to pay the price.
I learned many years ago, not to play favorites amongst employees, even the ones who created or had created the "reservoir of good will."
I am not familiar with the employment laws of Virginia. I do know one responsibility of good management is to limit, mitigate, or eliminate the employer's exposure to risk. This is one of the reason an employer has rules to control the conduct of an employer. When an employer minimizes risk, he might also limit liability.
Our litigious society and society's current love for "zero tolerance" has driven employers to this extreme. I am sure there is a phalanx of lawyers who had advised the employer in the past, and who continue to provide legal advice.
In these situations lawyers are not paid to use common sense. Rather, they are paid to provide the best advice to mitigate and/or eliminate liability.
I want an attorney who will:
1.) keep me out of trouble.
2.) help me out of trouble if I should so find myself.
3.) protect my employer.
My attorney can keep the common sense advice for other clients. I want an attorney who will give me sound advice and, if necessary, fight and win for me. You know, like the lawyers who work for Auto Zone.
Here's a question: you have a business. When you deal with your attorney, do you want common sense advice, or the advice which will keep you out of court, and best support you if you have to go to court?
In my employment, I've had to deal with hundreds of cases covering employee vs contractor status, challenged terminations, EEOC claims/lawsuits, workers comp issues, and truck-related motor vehicle accidents. When I say "defend", I do not mean I am the attorney, I mean it has been in my area of responsibility from the company management perspective. I've also had to deal with the joy-joy of managing document production in response to discovery, depositions, due diligence, and settlement negotiations or claims payments. In terms of company risk, the challenges by various states on employee vs contractor status are by far and away our most serious business risk.
Leave common sense at the door. I want bullet-proof contracts, policies, and procedures. Then I want the policies and procedures followed without fail.
Don't blame me or modern American corporations. Blame the Plaintiffs bar and the Democrats for creating this litigious environment. FACT: the Plaintiffs attorneys have consistently been the one of the largest single donor groups to the Democrat party for decades.
That's the bottom line. I understand both sides of the situation, but I have to side with management.