Law Firm Fires Workers For Wearing Orange Shirts

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Be careful what you wear to work if you live an "at will" state. I don't think I own an orange shirt but I definitely would've been fired over the color of my car. ;)

Allan Weitzman, a board certified attorney in labor and employment law at Prosakauer Rose LLP in Boca Raton, says that under the ‘at will’ rule an employer “can fire for good reason, for bad reason, or for no reason at all, if the reason is not illegal.”
Click to expand...
 
There has got to be more to the story than this..Sorry, I am having a really difficult time believing that they got fired for "just" wearing an orange shirt.
 
Its true.
They can hire and fire "at will"
I have live in an "at will" state all my life.
Its suppose to protect the worker and the employer.
The Employer needs a good reason to fire otherwise the Employee almost always qualifies for unemployment benefits.
An employers hire ans fire (retention) percentage determines its unemployment insurance rate.
So it behooves employers to hire the right people to begin with and only fire for good cause.
Also no one can really sue anyone over employment unless its a direct violation of State and Federal labor laws.

So if they simply dont like you they can ask you to leave but you'll still get unemployment and the company takes a hit on their unemployment insurance rates.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
There has got to be more to the story than this..Sorry, I am having a really difficult time believing that they got fired for "just" wearing an orange shirt.
Click to expand...
The rumor on the site said these people were planning something, that's why they were all wearing orange. Now, if the lawfirm fires them simply due to that, whatever the people in orange were planing (to protest) was probably legit.
 
erexx said:
Its true.
They can hire and fire "at will"
I have live in an "at will" state all my life.
Its suppose to protect the worker and the employer.
The Employer needs a good reason to fire otherwise the Employee almost always qualifies for unemployment benefits.
An employers hire ans fire (retention) percentage determines its unemployment insurance rate.
So it behooves employers to hire the right people to begin with and only fire for good cause.
Also no one can really sue anyone over employment unless its a direct violation of State and Federal labor laws.

So if they simply dont like you they can ask you to leave but you'll still get unemployment and the company takes a hit on their unemployment insurance rates.
Click to expand...

I live in one as well, but did not know the reasons why. Good to know!
 
Dekoth-E- said:
There has got to be more to the story than this..Sorry, I am having a really difficult time believing that they got fired for "just" wearing an orange shirt.
Click to expand...

My thoughts. Unless they've been a pain in the management's side for awhile that they've been looking for any reason to fire them. But then again it's an at-will state, so they don't really need reasons.
 
Azhar said:
My thoughts. Unless they've been a pain in the management's side for awhile that they've been looking for any reason to fire them. But then again it's an at-will state, so they don't really need reasons.
Click to expand...

Probably reasoned as non-work attire, perfectly legit excuse to get rid of thorns in the side, heck if the VP's or anyone from the main office saw what we didn't wear in accordance of the off-site work code, we could get canned for wearing jeans (not wearing trousers or a suit to crawl around desk space, and getting covered in dirt) and tennis shoes/cross training sneakers/Reebok ZigTech, the office we assist doesn't care as most of their staff wear pretty much the same thing.
 
Manager: "Bob, I you're our number one employee. Number one in sales, everyone likes you... we just couldn't ask for a better person. Except... the orange shirt. Sorry to say, you're fired."

WAY more to the story than just getting fired for an orange shirt. I live in an at-will state, and have never feared for my job because of it. Do you job and do be a jackass and you won't have a problem. If you're doing your job (not being a jackass) and you get fired for some stupid reason, you probably have legal grounds for a lawsuit.
 
Right, I realize it is an "at will" state, I live in one myself. However most employers won't fire you for trivial reasons. While they may have stated that as the reason (unlikely to backfire on them legally), I am confident that there is far more to the story. In short, I doubt they were "top" employees by any stretch. I have never encountered a boss that would fire good employees over a minor transgression, employees who are already walking a line however....
 
This "right to work" and "at will" stuff is comical. That race to the bottom is really heating up.
 
I almost fired a guy for chewing with his mouth open at a meeting with potential customers.
 
I live in a right to work state. Though technically "yes", they can fire you for any reason at all as long as it's legal (discrimination, race, sex, religion, etc would be illegal examples), employers rarely do it. Just as it's a right-to-work state, it's a "you can sue anyone state", and you can file a wrongful termination suit just because you can.

Most employers won't go through the hassle of that, so they would find some legit reason to fire someone. If they didn;t like you, they'll just put you under a microscope, and record every little thing you did wrong until they build a case to fire you.
 
The article was very light on details.

There has to be more to it than 14 co-workers wearing orange, on pay day, to go to happy-hour after work.
 
Yeah, and you can't just fire someone for any reason in an "at-will" state. For instance, it can't be discrimination or something like that.
 
I would've fired her for lookin' untidy like that too. Maybe if it was a professional looking orange blouse tucked into a conservative business suit it would be different, but that person does not look dressed for work in a law office.
 
My guess is that it was taken as an act of solidarity (organizing) and management wanted to nip it in the bud. There's definitely more here than what has been provided. And since it's a law firm we likely won't hear anything more unless the fired employees file suit.
 
Phatal said:
My guess is that it was taken as an act of solidarity (organizing) and management wanted to nip it in the bud. There's definitely more here than what has been provided. And since it's a law firm we likely won't hear anything more unless the fired employees file suit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

It's in the employees interest to try the case in the court of public opinion, especially knowing that the law firm will likely never respond as anything they say could open them up to litigation.
 
Draax said:
This "right to work" and "at will" stuff is comical. That race to the bottom is really heating up.
Click to expand...

Consider the opposite. Unionized employees are nearly impossible to fire. I have a friend that is a non-union employee at a rather large company that has a mostly union labor force. Workers have destroyed company property, damaged equipment, stolen things, shown up for work exactly one day a week for six months straight... and they never lose their jobs because if every step in the disciplinary process is not followed to the letter by management they cannot be terminated. The only exceptions for this are failing to submit to a drug test after a work-related injury, and acts of violence. The end result of this is people that would normally be hard workers see everyone else slacking off and, since you can't get rid of the slackers and losers, there's no incentive to perform. Everything stays at the lowest common denominator. That's why everything you buy is made in China now. If it was made in an American factory by union employees the cost would be at least triple.
 
I fail to understand why anyone should be able to dictate whether or not an employee is fired. All this bogus crap is why it's so hard to start and continue a successful business. If someone wants to fire you, do you really want to continue to work there just because they can't fire you?
 
Phoenix333 said:
Consider the opposite. Unionized employees are nearly impossible to fire. I have a friend that is a non-union employee at a rather large company that has a mostly union labor force. Workers have destroyed company property, damaged equipment, stolen things, shown up for work exactly one day a week for six months straight... and they never lose their jobs because if every step in the disciplinary process is not followed to the letter by management they cannot be terminated. The only exceptions for this are failing to submit to a drug test after a work-related injury, and acts of violence. The end result of this is people that would normally be hard workers see everyone else slacking off and, since you can't get rid of the slackers and losers, there's no incentive to perform. Everything stays at the lowest common denominator. That's why everything you buy is made in China now. If it was made in an American factory by union employees the cost would be at least triple.
Click to expand...

I have worked in two union environments as a member of mgt. It depends on the company and the strength of the union. They were an annoyance, but had no real power. The company he works for needs to get better at negotiating when the contract comes up for renewal.
 
People don't have a right to not be fired... As a business owner and private property I the OWNER get to decided who gets to work for me... Others have no say on my decisions. It is my business, my property and my money. I get to choose.
 
jnmunsey said:
People don't have a right to not be fired... As a business owner and private property I the OWNER get to decided who gets to work for me... Others have no say on my decisions. It is my business, my property and my money. I get to choose.
Click to expand...

Within reason and within the law, you mean.
 
I am positive there was another reason for wearing 'inmate/chain-gang' orange as a group. Likely some kind of protest about conditions at work, some kind of restrictive policy, or simply a gripe about wages they had planned on making a stink about. Unfortunately it got their stupid asses fired before they had a chance to even make thing difficult for the firm.
 
stevetrollorange.jpg
 
I used to live in an "at will" state. It was fine by me because I knew what to expect: every job is a temp job. Always keep a few networking opportunities and recruiters in mind, keep your CV updated and have a boilerplate letter of recommendation handy. I never stopped looking for work even when I had a job since I knew it could be gone at any moment.

I was terminated from a few shitty jobs but it really didn't bother me. I remember the last job I had before I moved my boss took me into his office and said they were firing me... some bs about me missing a few days of work a few months prior due to a car accident. He had this pathetic kicked puppy look on his face like he was expecting I was going to go ballistic or something but I simply asked for clarification. I told him that my absence was excused since I had already talked to HIS boss about it and if they had a problem they should have fired me then and not three months down the road. I eventually got the story that one of the companies owners (it was a small biz) wanted to give their nephew straight out of tech trade school my job. He was surprised when I was totally cool with it on one condition. I had him sign a letter of rec for me stating that I'm an exemplary employee blah blah blah and they are sorry to see me go due to the financial difficulties the company was facing and also had them sign a letter waiving their right to deny my unemployment not that I needed it.

I left without incident, gave them all my documentation and played real nice. I milked them for unemployment for a while, took a vacation and took a better job out of state.

The more you know... csb!
 
Wow, I can’t believe no one knows about orange in St. Patrick’s Day. Orange was worn many years ago by the Protestants in Northern Ireland in protest of the Irish Catholic Church. Wars were fought over this.

Today it has all degenerated into this crap: (please delete if the content is too offensive)

http://www.mrgaypride.org/OrangeOnStPats.html

Google “wearing orange on St. Patrick’s Day”
 
Who in the history of employment wears orange to signify they are going bar hoping after work? Sounds like BS to me. Plus this is a law office not a road crew, dress more professional. Good riddens.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

It's in the employees interest to try the case in the court of public opinion, especially knowing that the law firm will likely never respond as anything they say could open them up to litigation.
Click to expand...

lol they are collection lawyers & robo signers I think they are not worried about public opinion. What I'd be worried about is these employees rat me to the FEDs for fraud.,
 
Phoenix333 said:
Consider the opposite. Unionized employees are nearly impossible to fire. I have a friend that is a non-union employee at a rather large company that has a mostly union labor force. Workers have destroyed company property, damaged equipment, stolen things, shown up for work exactly one day a week for six months straight... and they never lose their jobs because if every step in the disciplinary process is not followed to the letter by management they cannot be terminated. The only exceptions for this are failing to submit to a drug test after a work-related injury, and acts of violence. The end result of this is people that would normally be hard workers see everyone else slacking off and, since you can't get rid of the slackers and losers, there's no incentive to perform. Everything stays at the lowest common denominator. That's why everything you buy is made in China now. If it was made in an American factory by union employees the cost would be at least triple.
Click to expand...

Is your country really trying to compete with China? Do you really want your people to make 0.23$/hour? Do you believe that your economy is strong enough to weather that? When the middle class disappears and a greater number of people have zero purchasing power how is the economy going to be driven?
The above is the end result of the race to the bottom, which is being ushered along by myopic policies such as the "right to work" and "at will".
 
Draax said:
Is your country really trying to compete with China? Do you really want your people to make 0.23$/hour? Do you believe that your economy is strong enough to weather that? When the middle class disappears and a greater number of people have zero purchasing power how is the economy going to be driven?
The above is the end result of the race to the bottom, which is being ushered along by myopic policies such as the "right to work" and "at will".
Click to expand...

What kind of labor policies do you propose and/or support?
 
Why is Al Franken still in office? How stupid are Minnesotans to keep electing him? :rolleyes: :mad:
 
BillR said:
Wow, I can’t believe no one knows about orange in St. Patrick’s Day. Orange was worn many years ago by the Protestants in Northern Ireland in protest of the Irish Catholic Church. Wars were fought over this.

Today it has all degenerated into this crap: (please delete if the content is too offensive)

http://www.mrgaypride.org/OrangeOnStPats.html

Google “wearing orange on St. Patrick’s Day”
Click to expand...


I do know about the whole wearing orange on St. Patrick's Day. I have been in my share of, um, physical altercations when I was younger and the whole orange thing was a really, really big deal (4th generation Irish here, yes I'm female but in my late teens especially I was more or less a brawler).

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with that or any kind of protest ... but there has got to be more to this than:

"Some of the group contend they had established a custom of wearing orange shirts on pay-day Fridays, to promote a feeling of togetherness when they would go out as a group for drinks.

Mailroom worker Yadel Fong, 21, told the paper, “To my mind, protesting is where you put your foot down, and you’re not working.” Fong says there was none of that on Friday."

Regardless of the fact that "You can legally be fired for wearing orange as a prelude to happy hour. You can legally be fired for wearing orange in protest. Or, it could simply be that Elizabeth R. Wellborn, founder of the firm, which supports the mortgage banking industry, has a thing about the color.

Allan Weitzman, a board certified attorney in labor and employment law at Prosakauer Rose LLP in Boca Raton, says that under the ‘at will’ rule an employer “can fire for good reason, for bad reason, or for no reason at all, if the reason is not illegal.”

Now, what constitutes an "illegal" firing in at at will state? That is the big question. If you can be fired for wearing an orange shirt or because the weather's been icky for a week or your boss is having a bad day and doesn't like your hair-do, then what is an illegal firing?

I've been fired from just a couple of jobs - one I yelled I QUIT the same time the manager was yelling YOU'RE FIRED, that was a fun one! and I got fired over something my then boss was doing and I had the misfortune of finding out about. Was that one fair, not a bit. But it happened. And it had nothing to do with the way I dressed, conducted myself in the workplace, my job performance (which always got exemplary reviews), it was me being in the wrong place at the wrong time seeing the wrong thing and him sweating that I'd let it slip or as he put it "try to hold it over his head", pffft, I had my plate full just trying to do my job, do it well and get my paycheck. That's really all I cared about.
 
Draax said:
Is your country really trying to compete with China? Do you really want your people to make 0.23$/hour? Do you believe that your economy is strong enough to weather that? When the middle class disappears and a greater number of people have zero purchasing power how is the economy going to be driven?
The above is the end result of the race to the bottom, which is being ushered along by myopic policies such as the "right to work" and "at will".
Click to expand...

Thats all a lot of ppl are worth if that but warehouse them on public assistance degrading skills further. Maybe free labor just food until they build up skills would be more real. However craddle to grave welfare prevents market from knowing for sure. I'll just break us all someday so these ppl can be comfortable today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top