quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Wow..... so you think firing someone for voting the way you don't like is not preventing them from excercising their right to vote?

By your standards an employer could them send out a memo informing the employees that if they vote for anyone other than his candidate they will be terminated?

You are kinda thick aren't you.

I wanted to address this particular comment separately.

First, it isn't my standards.  It is the law.

Yes, I could send out a memo telling employees that they must vote the way I want or they will be fired.  Would be a bit stupid, but I could if I wanted to. 

Now, yes... this does sound very wrong.  One would immediately think this is illegal, but it is not.  I'm not keeping you from voting.  That would be illegal.  But I could make it a requirement for working for me that you must support the candidate of my choosing.

I'm not saying it isn't morally reprehensible.  But our laws aren't set up to govern every little aspect of our lives and personalities. 

So, okay... let's say you do get a memo like that from your employer. 

First, you have every right to leave that employer.

Second, your vote is secret.  Your employer cannot accompany you into the voting booth.  Only you can tell your employer who you actually voted for.  If you really want to continue to be employed by someone who would tell you how to vote, then lie to them.

Finally, you could legally challenge your employer.  You might prevail, you might not... but no one is stopping you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

If someone finds out they were fired for being gay or voting for Obama or for picking their nose in view of the boss one too many times, they may very well be able to sue and recover.  There are so many factors that can come into play it is really ridiculous.

No link to back it up with, but I will be happy to share my HR manual that I am required to follow the regs in, if ya wanna come by and see it.

I'm sure your little manual works just fine for you.  I'll stick with my education, my library and twenty-five years of experience, thank you.

quote:

It is the smart thing to have someone who can piss a person off enough, while staying within the confines of the law, to make that person resign.  Although that doesn't eliminate the chance of a lawsuit, it does reduce it substantially.

What you are describing is a very dangerous practice which can possibly be proven to be constructive discharge.  Reader beware.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
First, you have every right to leave that employer.

Second, your vote is secret.  Your employer cannot accompany you into the voting booth.  Only you can tell your employer who you actually voted for.  If you really want to continue to be employed by someone who would tell you how to vote, then lie to them.

Finally, you could legally challenge your employer.  You might prevail, you might not... but no one is stopping you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

If someone finds out they were fired for being gay or voting for Obama or for picking their nose in view of the boss one too many times, they may very well be able to sue and recover.  There are so many factors that can come into play it is really ridiculous.

No link to back it up with, but I will be happy to share my HR manual that I am required to follow the regs in, if ya wanna come by and see it.

It is the smart thing to have someone who can piss a person off enough, while staying within the confines of the law, to make that person resign.  Although that doesn't eliminate the chance of a lawsuit, it does reduce it substantially.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Well Miss Human Resources Director, fire me on that basis and see how fast I can win a large settlement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Treasure, I will give you credit where it is due.  You absolutely put a good deal of effort into your original.  Probably much more than necessary.

Depending on the position of the employee, unless there is specifically a contract involved, most states are considered "at will" when it comes to employment.  In other words, unless specified, neither the employer or the employee are under obligation to continue the situation that is made under a verbal agreement.  For the employee, it means you can quit and are not legally bound to return to work.  It also means that, technically, your employer doesn't really have to have a reason to fire you.  Most companies do have a tiered disciplinary procedure, but it really isn't necessary.  All that is necessary from a legal standpoint is to say, "your services are no longer required".

I didn't look at the other thread to see what state the story comes from, but if it is an employment at will state, as long as the employer did not break a federal discrimination guideline, he's probably clear.

LP, you are right, of course.  But in the original post and the one I mentioned above, there was little understanding of that.  Many were sure it was illegal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

This is not going to end well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: laurell3

You're missing the point.

Just FYI the federal law under intimidating someone or infringing with their right to vote makes this employer's actions arguably a felony. But that's not a contract issue (although I sure wouldn't want to be them):

Section 11 (b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as amended 43 U.S.C. Section 1971(b) provides:

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right
of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.


With regard to the contract issue. The employment law says, even at will employees can be considered to have a contract with basic provisions excluding termination for public policy reasons when a state exercises their right to recognize a public policy exception. (and no I cannot cite it today without paying for it, which I won't do...maybe later in the week I can for free if I bother a friend to pull it up). This state has in fact exercised that right with their statute criminalizing the behavior. Thus, although yes generally no contract exists, here, one has been created by the state right.

It isn't really as simple as just saying is there a statute. The law does not work that way in the vast majority of civil cases.

The most widely accepted exception, recognized by forty-three states, [14] is the public policy exception.  The public policy exception under case law is available largely to protect employees from dismissal in those situations where they refuse to commit an illegal or unethical act requested by the employer [15] or where they choose to exercise a statutory right, for example rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1970, or the Fair Labour Standards Act, 1938 (covering minimum wage and overtime). Again, the recognition and applicability of this exception varies from state to state.  Even among the forty-three states that accept the public policy exception, the definition of “public policy” varies.  “States either narrowly limit the definition to clear statements in the constitution or statutes, or permit a broader definition that enables judges to infer to declare a State’s public policy beyond the State’s constitution or statues.” [16]

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

The memo would be a screw up.  You could, however, word it entirely in a different way.

"We here at the company encourage employees to vote.  (Then go on about the candidate that was really preferred.)  Time will be given to those who need to visit the polls during working hours.  Yadda, yadda, yadda.  Help us support John McCain."

There's no negative consequence implied for voting for the other candidate.  On the surface, it actually is presented in such a way that the employer is promoting voting responsibility.  We're not talking about equal time under the press.  An employer is absolutely within their own rights of supporting one candidate over the other, even on company letterhead.

Truthfully, this is a clear case of both employer and employee needing a good dose of STFU.  If an employee was really worried about losing their job over their candidate choice, it would be easy enough for them to say that voting is private.  Of course, this specifically opens the door to bring such a suit if they are fired later.

If nothing else ever comes of this thread, people should know that they should document any issues that ever arise at their workplace.  Most employers make sure to keep such records in the event they ever wish to let you go.  In general, you should be doing the same thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: laurell3

You're missing the point.

Just FYI the federal law under intimidating someone or infringing with their right to vote makes this employer's actions arguably a felony. But that's not a contract issue (although I sure wouldn't want to be them):

Section 11 (b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as amended 43 U.S.C. Section 1971(b) provides:

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right
of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.


With regard to the contract issue. The employment law says, even at will employees can be considered to have a contract with basic provisions excluding termination for public policy reasons when a state exercises their right to recognize a public policy exception. (and no I cannot cite it today without paying for it, which I won't do...maybe later in the week I can for free if I bother a friend to pull it up). This state has in fact exercised that right with their statute criminalizing the behavior. Thus, although yes generally no contract exists, here, one has been created by the state right.

It isn't really as simple as just saying is there a statute. The law does not work that way in the vast majority of civil cases.

Laurell... I don't disagree that the law is much more complicated than what has been presented here.  I'm really not here to debate; to do so really requires a bit of education on the subject, and most here don't have the background.

I can tell you that the citation you've given does exist, but whether it applies the hypothetical case I've described, can only be properly debated in a legal forum.  I do suspect the definition and applicability of "intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce" of would be contested.  Perhaps a memo with blatant wording would indeed be crossing the line.

And for clarification, the citation you've given comes from 42CFR20§1971.  Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations relates to interior public lands.

As for your notes on contract issues, I would add the following from the International Labour Organization:

The most widely accepted exception, recognized by forty-three states, [14] is the public policy exception.  The public policy exception under case law is available largely to protect employees from dismissal in those situations where they refuse to commit an illegal or unethical act requested by the employer [15] or where they choose to exercise a statutory right, for example rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1970, or the Fair Labour Standards Act, 1938 (covering minimum wage and overtime). Again, the recognition and applicability of this exception varies from state to state.  Even among the forty-three states that accept the public policy exception, the definition of “public policy” varies.  “States either narrowly limit the definition to clear statements in the constitution or statutes, or permit a broader definition that enables judges to infer to declare a State’s public policy beyond the State’s constitution or statues.” [16]

It is a matter to be addressed individually by each state and should not be referred to as "employment law" in the general manner you have done.  Also, keep in mind that just because it is possible for something to be successfully litigated in a civil arena does not change what is "legal" and what is "illegal".  Civil cases do differ from criminal ones.

All in all, if employment law was so black and white as to simply say, "this is legal and this is not", then indeed we'd have no need for employment attorneys.  I realize that perhaps I've been just as guilty of that in this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

BTW, Treasure, considering expense of training an employee and the prospect of losing their knowledge, would you advise a supervisor to go forth with the firing?  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

BTW, Treasure, considering expense of training an employee and the prospect of losing their knowledge, would you advise a supervisor to go forth with the firing?  

quote:

ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight


We were 'sure' because this wasn't an at-will firing, this was a firing while being given the reason straight-out that it was because of who you voted for. No other reason given.

quote:

ORIGINAL: laurell3

Yeah you're still wrong. That memo would prove the violation under the voting rights act and pretty much cement the warrant for your arrest.

The lawsuit, filed in Kansas state court Oct. 6, highlights that there is no federal statute directly protecting private workers from being retaliated for their votes. “There’s not really a federal statute that would cover this. It’s just not there. It has to be a public policy argument that is covered by state law,” said Snell’s attorney, Lawrence Williamson of Kansas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: laurell3

Yeah you're still wrong. That memo would prove the violation under the voting rights act and pretty much cement the warrant for your arrest.

I would think if that were true, then this case wouldn't have been civil suit but instead a criminal case brought by the United States.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't think you get to choose to file a civil law suit in lieu of the government bringing criminal charges.  Seems to me any attorney with knowledge of a Federal crime has at least some responsibility to report that crime... something to do with Title 18.