TexasCHLforum.com

Walmart offers to rehire fired employee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/1 ... 25537.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

Here is an interesting collection of termination tales.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/1 ... 22013.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

bayouhazard wrote:In the American justice system, I thought the principle is that something is allowed unless it's specifically prohibited by law.

If you are referring to the Nashua, NH case, I will point out that there is nothing in the article alleging that the gas station attendant did something unlawful. Instead, he has only been accused by his employer of disobeying his instructions, or, you might say, terms of his employment.

"[The employer] said in a statement Wednesday that it instructs its cashiers to give thieves what they ask for during a robbery attempt to resolve the conflict peacefully and quickly."

The article does not report, BTW, that the terminated employee disputes the employer's statement. If he had done so, the "American justice system" would be open to serve him in what would be a "he said, but he said" situation, just as it was open to the employees in the OP who filed suit against Walmart. The "American justice system" is similarly open to the employee, as it was in the OP case, to dispute whether or not self defense is authorized notwithstanding such terms of employment.

If, instead, you are referring to the OP, it speaks for itself as to the way the "American justice system" functions.

Jim

bayouhazard wrote:Were they fired for defending themselves or is that their spin?

Maybe they were fired for violating company policy by detaining the guy. Maybe if they followed policy they wouldn't have been in danger and wouldn't have needed to defend themselves. Maybe that's why the company had that policy to limit risk.

Maybe not. I'm just thinking out loud.

Bayouhazard, I think you have put your finger right on the real question here. As I read the opinion of the U.S. District Court as it referred the case over to the state court, the District Court was faced with a motion for summary judgment filed by the employer. It appears that the employees alleged lawful self defense, and Walmart denied that allegation. Whether or not self defense constitutes an exception to the employer's otherwise broad discretion in that state is a question of law, not of fact, and the U. S. court, properly in my opinion, is asking the state court to answer that question. The state court may or may not choose to answer the question, and if it does not, the U. S. court will have to answer it itself.

If self defense is decided by the state court as being no exception to the employer's authority in the state, it would appear that the motion by Walmart will be granted, as it would appear clear that known employer policy was violated. If that is the decision of the state court there is nothing left by way of an issue of fact to be decided by the jury; there only being left an issue of law, then the motion for summary judgment I would expect to be granted.

If, to the contrary, the state court decides that self defense constitutes an exception to the employer's authority to terminate at will in the state, then we would be left with an issue of fact for the jury -- was it self defense or not? That would leave a question of fact for the jury, dealing with which is the jury's function, and the current motion for summary judgment would not be ripe for decision. A motion for summary judgment is not ripe for decision unless there are no issues of fact.

Taking it one step further, if the case goes in this direction and the jury decides the employees were engaged in self defense, then Walmart loses. If, on the other hand the jury decides that the employees were not engaged in lawful self defense, then Walmart wins.

This is an important case for Walmart, as it stikes its long-standing strict policy right in the gut.

Time will tell. '

Please recognize that there is some speculation here, and I have made some broad statements which may be questioned in their specifics, but this is a good faith effort to analyze the situation before it wandered off into other areas.

Jim

cb1000rider wrote:Jim,
I appreciate the respectful rebuke.. Seriously.
How did I over state it? Obviously my viewpoint is too simplistic. A quick google, as you suggested produces:

At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning.

I simply stated that an employer can fire an employee for doing the right thing or wrong thing, as they see fit. Right or wrong is clearly subjective - at least as proven by this forum and certainly as shown in employment law. Stopping a theft without bodily harm might be morally right, but wrong per employer policy.

Perhaps I didn't include that at-will employment is limited to specific protections afforded under the law? IE - you can't fire me for my race or sexual orientation.

cb1000rider. I must hasten to give my apology. I did not intend my post to be a personal rebuke, respectful or otherwise, which would have been totally out of line. Going back and reading it I see it was easily and reasonably considered to be such. Another case of my fingers getting ahead of my brain, which often happens to this very old man.

I must also say that in my effort to be brief I certainly did not intend to imply that every sentence one might encounter with Google is, especially when out of context, correct. Quite the contrary is more often true. Your quote, above, is a prime example of that, and it is clear to me that you know that to be the case, as you go on to point that out yourself by listing exceptions.

Lastly, my suggestion that one might commence a personal study of this sometimes complex issue on the Internet was intended for those who have questions which simply cannot be answered briefly on such a forum. You are clearly not included in that group. Volumes have been written about this issue, much of them devoted to efforts taken by many judges to overcome the draconian effect of some black-and-white legislative actions.

If I might borrow some words from Oldgringo, just above, I guess my point was to be sure that a member which becomes a "firee" knows that there have been many a case where "next come the lawyers" gives relief to a grossly offended employee, and that an employee-at-will should not assume that there is never a remedy for his or her being treated wrongly. There may not be, but there may be if effective assistance is sought.

You have shown yourself both here and elsewhere on the forum, time and again, to be both an honest and discerning commentator. I was reminded of this only this morning, when I read the thread about medical records. I want to compliment you on the assistance you rendered to other members of the form on that thread.

Again, my apologies for my poor choice of words,

Jim

cb1000rider wrote:SNIP
It just means that in Texas you can be fired for doing the wrong thing or fired for doing the right thing, as your employer sees fit.

A black-and-white overstatement like that just leads to further confusing the issue for those who have shown confusion already and who are mature enough to be willing to admit it. You might take a look at the rational posts above which discuss that there are exceptions in most, if not all, states (Texas being one of those), to an employer-at-will's authority to terminate an employee. As is so often the case, black-and-white becomes gray. Easy answers to hard questions lead to incorrect answers.

I might respectfully take the liberty of suggesting that Googling "employment at will" is a good place to start one's education about this complex subject, which is an important and meaningful subject for some persons. It simply cannot be fully discussed in a brief blurb on a forum.

Jim