TexasCHLforum.com

b322da wrote:
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.

Jim,
Thanks. I'm always up for a rational and respectful conversation. I also admit to over-simplifying things. A person cannot be fired in Texas "for any reason" - that is certainly incorrect. My brain automatically skips the really dumb things that people have been fired for in the past, things to do with protected class...

And I mean no disrespect to your vocation - I assume you are an attorney. I'm reasonable enough to know that the law is *very* complicated.

If an employer can't fire somebody for acting in self defense, how can they fire somebody for carrying a self defense tool?

cb1000rider wrote:I'm always up for a rational and respectful conversation. I also admit to over-simplifying things. A person cannot be fired in Texas "for any reason" - that is certainly incorrect. My brain automatically skips the really dumb things that people have been fired for in the past, things to do with protected class...

And I mean no disrespect to your vocation - I assume you are an attorney. I'm reasonable enough to know that the law is *very* complicated.

Yes the law is "very" complicated, but the reality is that a person can be fired "for no reason".

I am not an attorney, but I am very experienced with reality in the workplace.

If a company wants to terminate a person all they have to do is claim that a position has been eliminated and their service is no longer required.

This may be against the law, but it has been done thousands of times and the person has no recourse other than sue the company.

Probably less than 1% of wrongful termination suits are won by the plaintive.

APD just fired an officer for defending himself. They have done so in the past.

Maybe he should move to Utah if the lawsuit succeeds.

Another same story. This time it is in Nashua, NH. A lovely NH town where I lived there for 5 yrs.

Shannon "Bear" Cothran thwarted a would-be robber by pulling out his handgun — and was fired from his gas station job just hours later.

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/nh-ga ... -on-robber" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

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

So they were fired for detaining the shoplifter. I am curious what the "acting" policy in the store was. If they were commonly asked by local management to detain or bring shoplifters to that room, then that was the policy of the store regardless of the written policy.

Another thing that comes up, a company can fire you or lay you off, but the differences can affect your ability to collect unemployment or other benefits afterward.

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

MechAg94 wrote:So they were fired for detaining the shoplifter. I am curious what the "acting" policy in the store was. If they were commonly asked by local management to detain or bring shoplifters to that room, then that was the policy of the store regardless of the written policy.

I never worked at Walmart or in Utah so I'm only speaking in general terms when I say many large companies tell their employees not to detain thieves. They are told to "observe and report" and let real cops arrest the thieves.

Walmart offers to rehire fired employee.

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

Jim

b322da wrote:Walmart offers to rehire fired employee.

The difference is this gentleman didn't detain a shoplifter. He was on his break when he saw a woman being harassed, so he asked if she needed help and was attacked for his trouble. Like this but more violent. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=69551" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do believe this may be a much easier case to figure out.
Lets quit using huge words with alot of vowels and dumb it down, did the employee beat the living snot out of the shoplifter causing bodily injury?
Was the employee white and shoplifter non white?
I do believe these two questions answered will tell us Wallyworlds real reason for firing the employee in that they are cutting there losses and distancing themself from a much larger lawsuit from the gun toating litigant.
Yall are too quick to use statutes and heavy vowels to discuss these easy ones...

Murphyslawroadside wrote:I do believe this may be a much easier case to figure out.
Lets quit using huge words with alot of vowels and dumb it down, did the employee beat the living snot out of the shoplifter causing bodily injury?
Was the employee white and shoplifter non white?
I do believe these two questions answered will tell us Wallyworlds real reason for firing the employee in that they are cutting there losses and distancing themself from a much larger lawsuit from the gun toating litigant.
Yall are too quick to use statutes and heavy vowels to discuss these easy ones...

There is NEVER anything easy about the law. Its just a fact of life.