Marshall principal accused of Bias incident.
even stupid people and guilty people deserve an investigation before you fire them.
ml1 said:
even stupid people and guilty people deserve an investigation before you fire them.
100%. Said it in an earlier post but it bears repeating- IF the incident went down as is being alleged. There is no need to rush, just a need to get it right.
I don't understand why people think that in any occupation you can just walk into someone's office and say "you're fired!" Unless you're planning on a generous buyout, you need to document why you're firing someone. I've had to let people go for poor performance. It can take months to do it properly.
I agree about being careful here, but I will add that in my business anyone can be fired at any time with no buyout or severance. I have worked on many difficult projects only to be replaced at the end by someone's relative. I think this is more common than many in our area realize.
ml1 said:
I don't understand why people think that in any occupation you can just walk into someone's office and say "you're fired!" Unless you're planning on a generous buyout, you need to document why you're firing someone. I've had to let people go for poor performance. It can take months to do it properly.
The one major exception to that is when the behavior impacts other employees. I agree with you if we’re talking “for cause” termination for underperformance for example.
With harassment when the incident itself is not in dispute that’s a wrap. I know people who made idiots of themselves at work social events by just mouthing off to someone and they were gone the next morning.
An employer is in a sense stuck between the devil & the deep blue. Keeping or firing are both paths that may lead to a suit- either for wrongful termination or for hostile work environments.
Having also known people who have been fired who said “I’ll sue!” only to find themselves unable to find a lawyer to take them on, firing the harasser is the right thing not just morally but economically.
We are speaking abstractly. This is no call for any particular action in this case, tho if the accusations as leveled are true I find it hard to believe the principal would be able to effectively lead from here.
no doubt. If something is really egregious like assault or sexual harassment or stealing the employee can be persuaded to leave right away to avoid excess notoriety.
but in the case of the Marshall principal, is it really open and shut that she should be fired immediately? I would say she should be fired, but I could see someone making a case for an apology, counseling, re-training etc. in lieu of termination. I just don't see why people get so worked up over someone trying to defend themselves, and the employer going through the process. It's not as though this incident is being swept under the rug. I would be very surprised if the principal isn't gone from Marshall before the end of this term.
Jackson_Fusion said:
ml1 said:
I don't understand why people think that in any occupation you can just walk into someone's office and say "you're fired!" Unless you're planning on a generous buyout, you need to document why you're firing someone. I've had to let people go for poor performance. It can take months to do it properly.
The one major exception to that is when the behavior impacts other employees. I agree with you if we’re talking “for cause” termination for underperformance for example.
With harassment when the incident itself is not in dispute that’s a wrap. I know people who made idiots of themselves at work social events by just mouthing off to someone and they were gone the next morning.
An employer is in a sense stuck between the devil & the deep blue. Keeping or firing are both paths that may lead to a suit- either for wrongful termination or for hostile work environments.
Having also known people who have been fired who said “I’ll sue!” only to find themselves unable to find a lawyer to take them on, firing the harasser is the right thing not just morally but economically.
We are speaking abstractly. This is no call for any particular action in this case, tho if the accusations as leveled are true I find it hard to believe the principal would be able to effectively lead from here.
FilmCarp said:
I agree about being careful here, but I will add that in my business anyone can be fired at any time with no buyout or severance. I have worked on many difficult projects only to be replaced at the end by someone's relative. I think this is more common than many in our area realize.
Which is one of the reasons why many professions have unions. The situation isn't perfect, and it does suck when we see employers having to jump through hoops to get rid of employees who obviously need to go, but it is abuse of employees that lead to unions being necessary in the first place. The union will fight for every employee, right or wrong, to make sure that all get equal protection.
As an employee that is protected by a union my husband does not have to worry about being replace by anyone's relative.
FilmCarp said:
I agree about being careful here, but I will add that in my business anyone can be fired at any time with no buyout or severance. I have worked on many difficult projects only to be replaced at the end by someone's relative. I think this is more common than many in our area realize.
I'm curious what kind of company you work for. I've worked for big multinationals most of my career and that kind of thing just wouldn't happen. Certainly not at companies based in NY or CA. If my boss walked into my office and just fired me with no buyout offered, I'd have myself a lawyer in 2 minutes. And I'm certain I'd win a very nice settlement.
ml1 said:
FilmCarp said:
I agree about being careful here, but I will add that in my business anyone can be fired at any time with no buyout or severance. I have worked on many difficult projects only to be replaced at the end by someone's relative. I think this is more common than many in our area realize.
I'm curious what kind of company you work for. I've worked for big multinationals most of my career and that kind of thing just wouldn't happen. Certainly not at companies based in NY or CA. If my boss walked into my office and just fired me with no buyout offered, I'd have myself a lawyer in 2 minutes. And I'm certain I'd win a very nice settlement.
Unless you have a contract in place this is unlikely. New Jersey is an At Will state. I don't know about New York. At Will means they can terminate your employment so long as it doesn't violate the law. You cannot be terminated because of race, gender, etc. You cannot be terminated because you refused to break the law. You cannot be terminated if it violates a contract or company policy. But if your termination doesn't fit any of the above then you can be terminated for no reason and will have no legal recourse other than to collect unemployment.
Absent a contract (your own personal one or union), or a termination prompted by a legally prohibited motive (rce etc.), employment is at will. Buyouts have become part of corporate culture during layoffs/reductions to avoid litigation. You fire 100 people, soneone's gonna sue claiming discrimination. It's convenient. They don't have to do it. If they fire an individual for a reason specific to that individual (even if its a bad reason like giving the boss' son a job), don't count on a buyout.
spontaneous said:
ml1 said:
FilmCarp said:
I agree about being careful here, but I will add that in my business anyone can be fired at any time with no buyout or severance. I have worked on many difficult projects only to be replaced at the end by someone's relative. I think this is more common than many in our area realize.
I'm curious what kind of company you work for. I've worked for big multinationals most of my career and that kind of thing just wouldn't happen. Certainly not at companies based in NY or CA. If my boss walked into my office and just fired me with no buyout offered, I'd have myself a lawyer in 2 minutes. And I'm certain I'd win a very nice settlement.
Unless you have a contract in place this is unlikely. New Jersey is an At Will state. I don't know about New York. At Will means they can terminate your employment so long as it doesn't violate the law. You cannot be terminated because of race, gender, etc. You cannot be terminated because you refused to break the law. You cannot be terminated if it violates a contract or company policy. But if your termination doesn't fit any of the above then you can be terminated for no reason and will have no legal recourse other than to collect unemployment.
I think you are right about her being gone if she did as the media is describing. If she was a firefighter or a DPW worker that would be one thing. But she’s supposed to lead by example and she would have a hard time credibly disciplining a teacher reporting to her who did something similar- nevermind a student (hopefully the students don’t know and won’t know what happened).
I mean cmon... grade school principal. She’s supposed to be, as much as she can, a paragon of decency and fairness. That’s pretty much the job description.
ml1 said:
no doubt. If something is really egregious like assault or sexual harassment or stealing the employee can be persuaded to leave right away to avoid excess notoriety.
but in the case of the Marshall principal, is it really open and shut that she should be fired immediately? I would say she should be fired, but I could see someone making a case for an apology, counseling, re-training etc. in lieu of termination. I just don't see why people get so worked up over someone trying to defend themselves, and the employer going through the process. It's not as though this incident is being swept under the rug. I would be very surprised if the principal isn't gone from Marshall before the end of this term.
Jackson_Fusion said:
ml1 said:
I don't understand why people think that in any occupation you can just walk into someone's office and say "you're fired!" Unless you're planning on a generous buyout, you need to document why you're firing someone. I've had to let people go for poor performance. It can take months to do it properly.
The one major exception to that is when the behavior impacts other employees. I agree with you if we’re talking “for cause” termination for underperformance for example.
With harassment when the incident itself is not in dispute that’s a wrap. I know people who made idiots of themselves at work social events by just mouthing off to someone and they were gone the next morning.
An employer is in a sense stuck between the devil & the deep blue. Keeping or firing are both paths that may lead to a suit- either for wrongful termination or for hostile work environments.
Having also known people who have been fired who said “I’ll sue!” only to find themselves unable to find a lawyer to take them on, firing the harasser is the right thing not just morally but economically.
We are speaking abstractly. This is no call for any particular action in this case, tho if the accusations as leveled are true I find it hard to believe the principal would be able to effectively lead from here.
spontaneous said:
As an employee that is protected by a union my husband does not have to worry about being replace by anyone's relative.
--- or as in the case of Jersey City in the reign of Mayor Hague, whoever gave the most to is campaign.
I'm not sure about NJ. But both CA and NY are states where there is an implied covenant of good faith. An employer has to have a good faith reason for firing someone -- incompetence, malfeasance, mass layoff, etc. You can't just fire someone because you want to give the job to someone else unless you negotiate a separation. That's been my experience throughout my career working in NY and working with people in CA.
spontaneous said:
ml1 said:
FilmCarp said:
I agree about being careful here, but I will add that in my business anyone can be fired at any time with no buyout or severance. I have worked on many difficult projects only to be replaced at the end by someone's relative. I think this is more common than many in our area realize.
I'm curious what kind of company you work for. I've worked for big multinationals most of my career and that kind of thing just wouldn't happen. Certainly not at companies based in NY or CA. If my boss walked into my office and just fired me with no buyout offered, I'd have myself a lawyer in 2 minutes. And I'm certain I'd win a very nice settlement.
Unless you have a contract in place this is unlikely. New Jersey is an At Will state. I don't know about New York. At Will means they can terminate your employment so long as it doesn't violate the law. You cannot be terminated because of race, gender, etc. You cannot be terminated because you refused to break the law. You cannot be terminated if it violates a contract or company policy. But if your termination doesn't fit any of the above then you can be terminated for no reason and will have no legal recourse other than to collect unemployment.
ml1 said:
I'm not sure about NJ. But both CA and NY are states where there is an implied covenant of good faith. An employer has to have a good faith reason for firing someone -- incompetence, malfeasance, mass layoff, etc. You can't just fire someone because you want to give the job to someone else unless you negotiate a separation. That's been my experience throughout my career working in NY and working with people in CA.
I am surprised by that. I would think that if something like this incident happened at Our Lady of Sorrows School rather than Marshall the person could be fired without legal recourse.
Found the following article:
https://www.thebalance.com/can-you-get-fired-for-no-reason-2060736
NY and NJ are unquestionably employment at will states. You can be fired for any reason (or no reason) as long as the reason is not on the short list of ones considered to be unlawful. California is an EAW state too although certain exceptions have eaten into the doctrine there. Again, big corp culture and policy has tended toward more caution and "niceness" in dealing with termination but don't confuse that with the law.
Has the principal been suspended or is she still showing up at the school?
Can't fire stupid either.
Jackson_Fusion said:
yahooyahoo said:
Training, updating workplace rules, procedures, etc.
FilmCarp said:
yahooyahoo said:
Did he talk at all about how the district will change things so these situations don't happen in the future?
How can they? You do your best to get the best, most qualified people you can find into the right positions but how do you know in advance exactly what will come out of their mouth? Did she have an easily viewed history of denigrating short people?
I’d imagine she violated existing rules and procedures. At her level of experience and authority training wouldn’t make a bit of difference.
It’s not as though anyone who can fog a mirror would walk out of a new training and say, “damn, glad I came. Had no idea that you shouldn’t make fun people’s physical characteristics, let alone characteristics that could be considered a disability, let alone make fun of someone with those characteristics who reports to you, let alone to other people who report to you. Who knew?”
Can’t fix nasty, can’t fix stupid.
IANAL, but I do not believe it is this simple. For someone to be fired at will with absolutely no reason, a company would have to have no HR policies. If your company has a review process or a termination process that they typically follow, they typically can't violate that implied contract and just fire you.
bub said:
NY and NJ are unquestionably employment at will states. You can be fired for any reason (or no reason) as long as the reason is not on the short list of ones considered to be unlawful. California is an EAW state too although certain exceptions have eaten into the doctrine there. Again, big corp culture and policy has tended toward more caution and "niceness" in dealing with termination but don't confuse that with the law.
Implied Employment Contracts An implied employment contract is one that is inferred from comments made during an interview or job promotion, or from something said in a training manual or handbook. For example: Implied contracts can be inferred from actions, statements, or past employment history of the employer. An employee may have seen or recorded a history of promotions, raises, and annual reviews for themselves and their coworkers. During an interview, a potential employee may be told that the employee’s job is a long-term or permanent position in place unless they are fired for a good reason.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-an-employment-contract-2061985
In other words, they can't treat one person differently than everyone else even if that person is not in a protected class. And they can't give you raises, promotions and great reviews and then one day just up and fire you. And they certainly can't fire you on the spot for no reason if they have published HR policies that imply otherwise.
you're really mixing up two different issues. One is whether, as a matter of law, an employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason as long as it not one of the bad reasons like race age discrimination etc. The unquestionable answer to that question is yes. The other issue is whether under the particular circumstances of a particular employer/employee relationship, a court can find that there was an employment contract. In theory, am employment manual might have language that helps the employee but in practice, most corp employment manuals make it very clear that they are not and do not imply employment contracts. And yes, you can do really well at work for a long time and then be fired. It happens all the time.
Klinker said:
Has the principal been suspended or is she still showing up at the school?
Nothing has been announced.
It's not mixing up two different issues. There is the letter of the law, and there is the law as it is applied in the real world. In all my decades in business, I have never heard of anyone fired on the spot for absolutely no reason who didn't get a buyout. Maybe it happens if you work in hamburger joint or a machine shop with 20 employees. But it doesn't happen in big corporations or government entities that have actual HR policies.
bub said:
you're really mixing up two different issues. One is whether, as a matter of law, an employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason as long as it not one of the bad reasons like race age discrimination etc. The unquestionable answer to that question is yes. The other issue is whether under the particular circumstances of a particular employer/employee relationship, a court can find that there was an employment contract. In theory, am employment manual might have language that helps the employee but in practice, most corp employment manuals make it very clear that they are not and do not imply employment contracts. And yes, you can do really well at work for a long time and then be fired. It happens all the time.
But their HR policies will say that they are operating under "employment-at-will" law. I've seen people fired for no reason other than they are not liked but they did get some severance.
ml1 said:
IANAL, but I do not believe it is this simple. For someone to be fired at will with absolutely no reason, a company would have to have no HR policies. If your company has a review process or a termination process that they typically follow, they typically can't violate that implied contract and just fire you.
bub said:
NY and NJ are unquestionably employment at will states. You can be fired for any reason (or no reason) as long as the reason is not on the short list of ones considered to be unlawful. California is an EAW state too although certain exceptions have eaten into the doctrine there. Again, big corp culture and policy has tended toward more caution and "niceness" in dealing with termination but don't confuse that with the law.
Look, your mislabeling something that we are otherwise in agreement about. Big corps these days usually don't fire people "on the spot" in the way they do in movies. But that's not because of the "law as applied in the real world" but because of HR policies that have seeped into corporate culture in the real world (granted, in part to avoid litigation or make a good record in the event of litigation).
Btw I worked on a case that involved a big corp that downsized without giving any buyouts. Five of the terminated employees sued, alleging various kinds of discrimination, and all of their claims were dismissed before they ever got to trial.
As for implied contracts, you have to make a much stronger showing than you imagine. If your theory is that you have an implied contract merely because you worked there a long time and did well, you are not getting to trial.
ml1 said:
It's not mixing up two different issues. There is the letter of the law, and there is the law as it is applied in the real world. In all my decades in business, I have never heard of anyone fired on the spot for absolutely no reason who didn't get a buyout. Maybe it happens if you work in hamburger joint or a machine shop with 20 employees. But it doesn't happen in big corporations or government entities that have actual HR policies.
bub said:
you're really mixing up two different issues. One is whether, as a matter of law, an employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason as long as it not one of the bad reasons like race age discrimination etc. The unquestionable answer to that question is yes. The other issue is whether under the particular circumstances of a particular employer/employee relationship, a court can find that there was an employment contract. In theory, am employment manual might have language that helps the employee but in practice, most corp employment manuals make it very clear that they are not and do not imply employment contracts. And yes, you can do really well at work for a long time and then be fired. It happens all the time.
bub said:
Look, your mislabeling something that we are otherwise in agreement about. Big corps these days usually don't fire people "on the spot" in the way they do in movies. But that's not because of the "law as applied in the real world" but because of HR policies that have seeped into corporate culture in the real world (granted, in part to avoid litigation or make a good record in the event of litigation).
if corporations were sure they would win all legal actions in these cases, they wouldn't pay anyone.
I am sorry to have caused all of this thread drift, but I will answer the question about my field and move on. I am a Union carpenter in the film industry. I build TV shows, commercials, and movies. All of the jobs are union, and the contracts provide for our pension and benefits, as well as safety and over time rules. The jobs are all temporary. We tend to work with people we know, and call the hall for people when we need more for a while. But we are daily employees. I run jobs now, and on a typical tv show I have a big build up front, where I have a large crew for a couple of months. Then it will shrink to three or so guys with me adding as needed for projects. When I hire I know what I need. Sometimes I need young fast people who may be a little rough but can bang it out, other times I need a finish crew that is more meticulous. When I don't have my own job I work for others. I am a stair and window type of guy. I will do whatever I am told, but I am best at handling the hardest parts of a project while younger folks do the bulk work. But any day they can tell any of us, except for the boss, not to come back as long as they do it by 2:30 in the afternoon. I hate losing my job that way, but many of the guys work strictly by nepotism, and I can't always avoid those crews. On my jobs, I stick with merit. Being sober and on time, willing to listen and learn, and working well with others goes a long way with me. I will release people if I think they are too dangerous to themselves or others. The injuries in my line of work are real and serious. We re under tremendous pressure to finish on time, and always work at least a ten hour day, sometimes 12. That's tough when you are on your feet on a concrete floor pushing wood through a table saw all day.
Anyway, back to Marshall. I hope if this is an isolated incident she will be given a chance to apologise and continue.
Few companies are going to be worried about implied in law employment contract cases. Those are rare. It's the inevitable discrimination cases that follow downsizing that they are trying to avoid. The outcomes of them are not easy to predict because they turn not on the event - its not inherently illegal to fire people - but the motive for the event. Some cases will dismissed before trial, others will go to trial with differing results.
All will be very expensive. The HR departments, under the guidance of nervous lawyers, have made a business decision that its cheaper to do buyouts (and receive liability releases) than to be dealing with waves of lawsuits. The point I'm making is that the buyouts do not represent an admission that the employees have a legal right to their jobs. It' a business decision.
ml1 said:
bub said:
Look, your mislabeling something that we are otherwise in agreement about. Big corps these days usually don't fire people "on the spot" in the way they do in movies. But that's not because of the "law as applied in the real world" but because of HR policies that have seeped into corporate culture in the real world (granted, in part to avoid litigation or make a good record in the event of litigation).
if corporations were sure they would win all legal actions in these cases, they wouldn't pay anyone.
And then no one would want to work there and they wouldn't be able to get any talent.
ml1 said:
bub said:
Look, your mislabeling something that we are otherwise in agreement about. Big corps these days usually don't fire people "on the spot" in the way they do in movies. But that's not because of the "law as applied in the real world" but because of HR policies that have seeped into corporate culture in the real world (granted, in part to avoid litigation or make a good record in the event of litigation).
if corporations were sure they would win all legal actions in these cases, they wouldn't pay anyone.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
I’d imagine she violated existing rules and procedures. At her level of experience and authority training wouldn’t make a bit of difference.
It’s not as though anyone who can fog a mirror would walk out of a new training and say, “damn, glad I came. Had no idea that you shouldn’t make fun people’s physical characteristics, let alone characteristics that could be considered a disability, let alone make fun of someone with those characteristics who reports to you, let alone to other people who report to you. Who knew?”
Can’t fix nasty, can’t fix stupid.