Curious

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IN

I am interested in whether or not this is wrongful termination, sexual harassment (or possibly both)

Young woman working at a start up restaurant. She was hired as a server but after a few weeks the owner started having her run the entire front of the house by herself, including management duties. She was still only paid at the server's rate of 2.25 an hour plus tips.

The day before Thanksgiving the owner hit on her, pretty crudely, and she shut him down, solidly. He left the restaurant and didn't come back that day. Yesterday was her first scheduled day after the holiday, and when she went into work, he laid her off, stating lack of work.

Now, she isn't going to pursue anything because she was making almost no money and intended to quit anyway, but what he did was wrong correct?

 

[cbg]

Working SOLELY on what is posted here, the possibility exists that this was a wrongful termination, yes. I am no more comfortable giving a blanket Yes or No to this post than I would any other, however.

I'll go as far as to say that there is more chance of this being a wrongful term than most of the ones we see.

 

[Taxing Matters]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IN

I am interested in whether or not this is wrongful termination, sexual harassment (or possibly both)

Young woman working at a start up restaurant. She was hired as a server but after a few weeks the owner started having her run the entire front of the house by herself, including management duties. She was still only paid at the server's rate of 2.25 an hour plus tips.

The day before Thanksgiving the owner hit on her, pretty crudely, and she shut him down, solidly. He left the restaurant and didn't come back that day. Yesterday was her first scheduled day after the holiday, and when she went into work, he laid her off, stating lack of work.

Now, she isn't going to pursue anything because she was making almost no money and intended to quit anyway, but what he did was wrong correct?

As stated it lays out at least a decent prima facie case for illegal discrimination on the basis of sex under federal law, assuming that the employer has at least 15 employees. There is a strong inference from the timing of the termination that he was firing her for refusing his sexual advance, which is a classic case of illegal sexual harassment. Whether the employer could make a good enough showing that lack of work (or something else that does not amount to illegal discrimination) was the reason for termination is, of course, impossible to say on what we have here. Indiana has a similar law, and it apparently applies to employers with at least 6 employees. She might want to consult an attorney who litigates employment discrimination claims to see if this would be worth pursuing.

 

[LdiJ]

As stated it lays out at least a decent prima facie case for illegal discrimination on the basis of sex under federal law, assuming that the employer has at least 15 employees. There is a strong inference from the timing of the termination that he was firing her for refusing his sexual advance, which is a classic case of illegal sexual harassment. Whether the employer could make a good enough showing that lack of work (or something else that does not amount to illegal discrimination) was the reason for termination is, of course, impossible to say on what we have here. Indiana has a similar law, and it apparently applies to employers with at least 6 employees. She might want to consult an attorney who litigates employment discrimination claims to see if this would be worth pursuing.

Like I said previously, she does not intend to pursue anything as she was planning on quitting anyway. We just wanted to know.