Ohio woman claims she was fired for Obama vote

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by JoeRider

Something tells me she was a temp employee for a reason in the first place. The owner probably was doing a nice thing hiring her and low and behold, is now getting screwed.

It is a BS law suit that puts a burden on the rest of us including higher insurance rates and an increase in the cost of goods.

The women was probably lucky she had a job in the first place and if she had not been so stupid, she still would have a job, but my guess is she is gone because she is the lowest in the ranks and the owner has no loyalty towards her. The owner (like most small business owners I know) are very conservative and that probably pissed her off. My guess is that she voted 3 times for Obama.

Your interpretation of the facts leaves much to be desired. She was a temp for a month before she was converted to full time employment. Your "probablys" don't add anything to the discussion. Try sticking to the facts that have been presented so far.

[Lurk]

Originally Posted by awpitt

Your interpretation of the facts leaves much to be desired. She was a temp for a month before she was converted to full time employment. Your "probablys" don't add anything to the discussion. Try sticking to the facts that have been presented so far.

She was probably hired on probationary status until her punctuality, productivity, and practicality could be judged. However, she was probably in a 'Last hired, first fired' short-term employee status as well.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by Lurk

She was probably hired on probationary status until her punctuality, productivity, and practicality could be judged. However, she was probably in a 'Last hired, first fired' short-term employee status as well.

Probably, woulda, shoulda, coulda, etc.

She "probably" (fill in the blank).


Again, let's try to stick with the facts that have been presented so far.

[Lurk]

Originally Posted by awpitt

Probably, woulda, shoulda, coulda, etc.

She "probably" (fill in the blank).


Again, let's try to stick with the facts that have been presented so far.

Facts as reported are that she was fired for economic reasons.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by Lurk

Facts as reported are that she was fired for economic reasons.

No, that is a claim. Just like the woman is claiming she was fired for political reasons. The employer is claiming economic reasons. The court will determine which claim is fact and which one is not.

[Lurk]

Originally Posted by awpitt

No, that is a claim. Just like the woman is claiming she was fired for political reasons. The employer is claiming economic reasons. The court will determine which claim is fact and which one is not.

So, if we go by this reasoning, we know nothing about what happened. In fact, we don't know for a fact she was fired. We have only the claim by a lawyer that she was fired.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by Lurk

So, if we go by this reasoning, we know nothing about what happened. In fact, we don't know for a fact she was fired. We have only the claim by a lawyer that she was fired.

Incorrect.

If you read the article, you'll notice that both the employee and the employer have acknowledged that the employee was let go. It's not clear if it was a layoff or a firing.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by JoeRider

Nice to know that you are on top of the facts.

Doesn't "at will employment" means you can terminate at will?

Really doesn't matter if it was a layoff or firing.

Even in cases of "at will employment", there is a thing called wrongful termination but it's up to the terminated employee to prove it. This employee is claimimg the employer violated Ohio Revised Code 3599.

[Ken King]

Originally Posted by awpitt

Even in cases of "at will employment", there is a thing called wrongful termination but it's up to the terminated employee to prove it. This employee is claimimg the employer violated Ohio Revised Code 3599.

Tony, help me out here. How is claiming a violation of election laws (which is what ORC3599 covers) for a supossed event that took place after the election was complete (the alleged asking who voted for Obama and then her firing) be able to go anywhere? It is obvious, at least to me, that the employer didn't interfere with or influence her voting in any manner as the employer's actions were post election.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by Ken King

Tony, help me out here. How is claiming a violation of election laws (which is what ORC3599 covers) for a supossed event that took place after the election was complete (the alleged asking who voted for Obama and then her firing) be able to go anywhere? It is obvious, at least to me, that the employer didn't interfere with or influence her voting in any manner as the employer's actions were post election.

I don't know. I was just quoting from the article. The women's lawyer(s) must think these something relevant in ORC3599 or they wouldn't have wasted time with this case.