Walmart Fires Employee for FB Status

[Bella Fortuna]

Yeah; I hate the litigious nature of this country, but I hope that Walmart gets their bollocks handed to them on a plate in court with this.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Yeah; I hate the litigious nature of this country, but I hope that Walmart gets their bollocks handed to them on a plate in court with this.

Sadly, I suspect they won't.

[Ronja]

WTF - you can have rules that supposedly bind the employees that the employees can't even get to see? How could that be legal?

[charlou]

So glad I live and work in Australia. Not perfect, but so much better ..

To be honest there's simply not enough information to tell. I can't imagine what Walmart could say was a nexus to his employment with them as they were not mentioned, and it was simply the stating of an opinion. Plus I've no idea how his state laws might vary from mine, and I don't know what private companies can make their employees agree to as far as terms of employment since my experience is with the public sector. If they were unionised that would make a difference too.

As it is, it's in his favour if he was given no notice and his evaluations have been satisfactory... but if he's an at-will employee I imagine his approach would have to be an assertion that they fired him related to a protected status (as I mentioned, age, race, etc.) which would definitely be illegal.

Does protected status include protection as an individual under the American constitution?


Someone mentioned going after the person who made the complaint ... If it could be shown that person was being vindictive with their complaint over a personal disagreement, and blackmailing the company with the use of "either he goes or I go" (threatening a boycott) ... and bringing the hapless employee's integrity into disrepute (actually, the company have done this too) ... Is there any sort of case along these lines?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Vaguely, remotely, sorta related.

[Bella Fortuna]

Does protected status include protection as an individual under the American constitution?

No. "Protected status" is a legal term meaning that you cannot be discriminated against/harassed/etc. for: age, sex, religion, marital status, race, and the like. What I've often seen happen in my work is that when an employee is unhappy that their poor performance is being addressed, or there are strained relations with one's supervisor for whatever non-illegal reason, they will see what protected categories they fit into and will claim they're being harassed/retaliated/discriminated against for those reasons and either we must conduct investigations or they file claims with outside agencies - but 99% of the time that's untrue and they simply don't want to take responsibility. But I digress as it has nothing to do with the Walmart issue...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

[Bella Fortuna]

Someone mentioned going after the person who made the complaint ... If it could be shown that person was being vindictive with their complaint over a personal disagreement, and blackmailing the company with the use of "either he goes or I go" (threatening a boycott) ... and bringing the hapless employee's integrity into disrepute (actually, the company have done this too) ... Is there any sort of case along these lines?

Interesting question and I don't know the answer...

[Tyrannical]

Someone mentioned going after the person who made the complaint ... If it could be shown that person was being vindictive with their complaint over a personal disagreement, and blackmailing the company with the use of "either he goes or I go" (threatening a boycott) ... and bringing the hapless employee's integrity into disrepute (actually, the company have done this too) ... Is there any sort of case along these lines?

Interesting question and I don't know the answer...

I bet that the person who reported it was employed by a "civil rights" activist group. Normal people don't search random open Facebook accounts, and then make reports against their employer if they include personal information and objectionable politics.

[Bella Fortuna]

Someone mentioned going after the person who made the complaint ... If it could be shown that person was being vindictive with their complaint over a personal disagreement, and blackmailing the company with the use of "either he goes or I go" (threatening a boycott) ... and bringing the hapless employee's integrity into disrepute (actually, the company have done this too) ... Is there any sort of case along these lines?

Interesting question and I don't know the answer...

I bet that the person who reported it was employed by a "civil rights" activist group. Normal people don't search random open Facebook accounts, and then make reports against their employer if they include personal information and objectionable politics.

As I recall it was someone who knew him in his work capacity, and disagreed strongly with his sentiments on that topic. It sounded like straight vindictiveness on an individual level. (I haven't gone back to check the story again, however, just going from memory)

[Tyrannical]

Someone mentioned going after the person who made the complaint ... If it could be shown that person was being vindictive with their complaint over a personal disagreement, and blackmailing the company with the use of "either he goes or I go" (threatening a boycott) ... and bringing the hapless employee's integrity into disrepute (actually, the company have done this too) ... Is there any sort of case along these lines?

Interesting question and I don't know the answer...

I bet that the person who reported it was employed by a "civil rights" activist group. Normal people don't search random open Facebook accounts, and then make reports against their employer if they include personal information and objectionable politics.

As I recall it was someone who knew him in his work capacity, and disagreed strongly with his sentiments on that topic. It sounded like straight vindictiveness on an individual level. (I haven't gone back to check the story again, however, just going from memory)

I thought that the one that identified him was not identified their self, and they claimed they shopped there.

[apophenia]

Weird. AFAIK, if it's a state or federal regulation, it has to be posted "in a conspicuous place".

Walmart needs a new motto: Walmart. We don't care. We don't have to. We're bigger than this.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Weird. AFAIK, if it's a state or federal regulation, it has to be posted "in a conspicuous place".

Walmart needs a new motto: Walmart. We don't care. We don't have to. We're bigger than this.

They should be called "Arrogance-R-Us". We had a major battle with them when they wanted to put a Wal-Mart within site of the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial, permanently ruining the atmosphere of the place. In Indiana they filled in a wetland for a parking lot, and paid the fine because it was cheaper and faster than going through the proper process, and perhaps being turned down.

[apophenia]

We had a major battle with them when they wanted to put a Wal-Mart within site of the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial, permanently ruining the atmosphere of the place. In Indiana they filled in a wetland for a parking lot, and paid the fine because it was cheaper and faster than going through the proper process, and perhaps being turned down.

Unfortunately, it's the way of the world. Companies routinely weigh potential profits against the cost of any counter-claims or adverse publicity and give the go ahead if the ratio is sufficient. And to be coldly blunt, I don't blame them. It's their job to do that, and they're not doing it correctly if they don't. Granted, depending on politicians to enact laws that make such behavior too costly to indulge in is spitting into the wind, but I don't offhand see a realistic alternative.

I wouldn't be surprised if some memo somewhere at Walmart simply says if someone complains about an employee's religious beliefs, it's more cost effective to find some pretense to can the employee and cleanup afterward. I have no doubt as well that "WIRE" is nothing more than a fertilizer rich monstrosity covering everything from killing the pope to tying your shoelace wrong, just so Papa Walmart always has a ready excuse to downgrade or fire anyone it pleases. Who do you think wrote that policy? Certainly not HR.

[Warren Dew]

WTF - you can have rules that supposedly bind the employees that the employees can't even get to see? How could that be legal?

Probably the employee is supposed to get to read it during the first couple days of orientation. In practice, I imagine those days may end up being skipped in some cases.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We had a major battle with them when they wanted to put a Wal-Mart within site of the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial, permanently ruining the atmosphere of the place. In Indiana they filled in a wetland for a parking lot, and paid the fine because it was cheaper and faster than going through the proper process, and perhaps being turned down.

Unfortunately, it's the way of the world. Companies routinely weigh potential profits against the cost of any counter-claims or adverse publicity and give the go ahead if the ratio is sufficient. And to be coldly blunt, I don't blame them. It's their job to do that, and they're not doing it correctly if they don't. Granted, depending on politicians to enact laws that make such behavior too costly to indulge in is spitting into the wind, but I don't offhand see a realistic alternative.

I wouldn't be surprised if some memo somewhere at Walmart simply says if someone complains about an employee's religious beliefs, it's more cost effective to find some pretense to can the employee and cleanup afterward. I have no doubt as well that "WIRE" is nothing more than a fertilizer rich monstrosity covering everything from killing the pope to tying your shoelace wrong, just so Papa Walmart always has a ready excuse to downgrade or fire anyone it pleases. Who do you think wrote that policy? Certainly not HR.

Profits are the only thing, credibility, respect, and an old-fashioned thing called "honor" would be, or rather used to be, important to a corporation.

"But that was a long time ago, and besides, the wench is dead."