First Amendment Issue / Possible Wrongful Termination Suit, Part 1

[vjrjr]

I ("V") am a 44 year old engineer working for an engineering services company.

In short, a coworker is being disciplined and may be terminated but does not believe there are any grounds for either. I feel there is.

My company's headquarters are in Virginia, but our division is based in New York. Approximately 10 persons in our division are currently working as contractors at a customer site, also located in New York. Our manager, "A", age 48, works from his apartment located near the customer, but he no longer works on the customer's site. I have been designated as the authority (even though I am not management) at the site. I am also rather close with "A" - almost more like brothers than manager/employee, so the nature of my conversations with him are often more informal in tone than what would be expected in a manager/employee relationship.

Two weeks ago, an issue arose which has evolved so that, as of today, it may lead to a termination and possibly a subsequent wrongful termination suit involving a coworker who I will call "C".

I will break the events down chronologically:

Wednesday, 13 June 2007

Our manager, "A", requested an off-site meeting for Thursday 14 June 2007 with the entire group in a restaurant so he could discuss our company's business. We were given a vote as to the restaurant where the meeting would be held. The choices were a local chinese buffet and Pizza Hut. Pizza Hut lost the vote.

"C" prefered Pizza Hut and was irked by the apparent outcome of the vote (it was not official) and stormed off. (As a side note: fellow coworkers and myself have noticed such behavior before in "C", not just in front of us, but in front of the customer. "C" is 25 years old and this is his second job. He is very intelligent also so is obviously "different" meaning that he is unlike most people of his demographics. He also can be rather stubborn and does not "listen". Once his mind is made up, he either ignores what others say or attempts to rationalize that others are incorrect.)

To appease "C", fellow employees "D" (age 24) and "P" (age 23) invited "C" to go to Pizza Hut for lunch with them that day (13 June). During that lunch, "C" made a distrubing comment which I will discuss later. An important side note is that "D" has been good friends with "C" since they were in college together.

After lunch, employees "B" (age 26) and "S" (age 24) were discussing "C"'s behavior during the vote. "D" then mentioned what "C" had said during lunch. Toward the end of the day, I was talking to "S" about "C"'s earlier behavior during the vote at which point "S" relayed the story to me, but was not specific about the comment. I then briefly spoke with "D" about it since he actually heard the comment.

Thursday, 14 June 2007
That morning, I realized that what "C" said was serious, even though I know him well-enough that he would not act on his implied actions. Nonetheless, I interrogated "S", "D", and "P" ("B" was unavailable) so I could gather what exactly was said by "C". I realized that "C" and "B" were second-hand sources, but "P" and "D" heard "C"'s comment directly. However, I also wanted to talk to all four employees so I could gauge the effect on them of "C"'s comment.

Before the group meeting at the Chinese buffet with "A", I wrote "A" an email. Unfortunately, "A" did not get a chance to thoroughly read it before the meeting. Below is an edited excerpt of the email that I had sent to "A" about this incident:

Yesterday, we had a vote about where to eat lunch today. The vote ended-up favoring Chinese buffet. "C" was for Pizza Hut buffet.

Once it appeared that he was going to lose, he had a controlled hissy fit and stormed-off all because he got out-voted and wasn't going to get what he wanted. Technically, it wasn't official at that time because I wanted to consult with you about Chinese in case you had any issues with that. ("J" told me no, so I didn't call.) However, "C" just stormed off even though I told him to hang on a moment because the decision wasn't final.

While I do think that "C" is mature enough not to pull a hissy fit in front of a VIP customer, his angry little girl behavior did not go unnoticed by all of us back here in the lab. (Customer "W" did not hear it, but we were not in a Customer-free environment.) While we are not customers, this is unprofessional and does not contribute toward a team-like atmosphere which, now that "R" is gone and "C" is in [[another building]], is really very good now.

This is a little more distressing though:

"D" and "P" tried to appease "C" and take him out to Pizza Hut buffet yesterday. According to "P" who I spoke to just now, during that lunch, "C" made a comment like (paraphrasing) "I wonder what the legality is of tampering with someone's brake line so that their brakes would fail after some time, but not immediately?" According to "P", "D" and he were somewhat taken aback by the question.

"P" just did a chat with me:

"P": For the record though, the question seemed placed at a weird time (completely out of the blue), and I wasn't sure if it was a joke, or something completely not work related. To be honest though it was rather odd, and with the whole food incident yesterday, quite possibly related to that. I remember Dan asking what he was talking about later, and the reply was "If I don't tell you, you can't be held responsible, or get in my way." After that point at lunch though, it wasn't brought up again.
"V" thanks
"P" no problem

Yesterday, I had quickly spoken with "D" in passing about "C"'s behavior which is when I first learned of the Charles' question at lunch. Just now, I spoke to "D" about "C"'s question and his story was essentially the same as "P"'s except "...tampering with someone's brake line so that their brakes would fail before their expected life expectancy?" I asked "D" how he felt about "C" asking that question. He said "I think ["C"] is going nuts. Let me just tell you this: I want to check my brakes and tires every morning now." "D" was not being facetious when he said that.

"S" told me that, after the lunch yesteray, back in the lab, "B" and "S" had been discussing how "C" was being such a baby about today's lunch not being in Pizza Hut. "D" came by and chimed in relaying the "C"'s question to them. After hearing that, "S" became rather uncomfortable and began to think that he has to watch out.

I haven't had a chance yet to interrogate "B" about it to get his details, but I am comfident that "B"'s story will not be much different than "D"'s, "P"'s, and "S"'s.

While I realize that stuff like what "C" said is just a way to blow off steam, as far as I am concerned, this is uncool because if he said something like that in front of a VIP customer that would not be good at all. It reflects badly on "C" illustrating his immaturity and badly on us for hiring such an immature individual and worse because "C" is no longer entry-level.

"C" already has a reputation for being "different" - that's part of his charm - but it fundamentally makes him not so easy to predict, so some people could easily extrapolate believing that "C" could go postal. Worst of all, if somebody doesn't know him well-enough, they might think he's a nutjob like Hannibal Lecter. With customers, that would be a tremendous crisis, but, even among co-workers, that does not foster a team mentality.

Overall, though, I'm not too concerned that "C" would act on his revenge fantasies, but I am going to talk to him later when I see him. You have enough to do, so, if it is OK with you, let me talk to him first. I will give you a post-mortem. If I don't think I'm getting through, I'll let you know. Still, you should be aware of this and perhaps talk to "D", "B", "P", and "S" about what "C" had said. However, if you want to say something at today's lunch to him, feel free to do so.

Just before the lunch meeting, "C" and arrived at the restuarant separately and before anyone else. "C" attempted to explain to me why he had stormed off during the vote. He began by saying that it was not the outcome of the vote, but that "B" would not go to Pizza Hut buffet if the lunch was to be held there. ("B" did not prefer Pizza Hut because he and several other employees "just had pizza" on Tuesday 12 June.) In reality, there was a vote though and both "C" and "B" knew this so the outcome could have gone to Pizza Hut and "B" would have gone. Since "C" knew of the vote, he realized that Pizza Hut was a possible outcome. If "C" had been so irked about "B"'s position, why didn't he express that before the apparent vote outcome? It was after the vote was apparently going for Chinese buffet that "C" stormed off, so the appearance is just that "C" is a sore loser which we all believed. As alluded to earlier, this was not unusual behavor for "C".

Shortly after "C" began, I retorted back immediately with ""C", that's not as bad a cutting somebody's brake lines!" I began to wallk away being so aggravated by what he said both at that moment and especially the previous day. My having just written the email to "A" not 1 hour earlier did not put me in a good mood. I continued with "C": "You are in a world of ****, "C"! You are lucky if you aren't terminated!" The rest of the group arrived and we had lunch.

"A" noticed that I was irked and that something was going on. I mentioned my email to him and he mentioned that he hadn't had a chance to really read it.

After the lunch, "S" and I hung-out with "A" by my car just talking. Eventually, I asked "S" to relay to "A" what he was told "C" had said. More importantly, I wanted "S" to tell "A" how he felt because of it. We later split-up and I decided to cool down before I spoke to "C" as I said I would in my above email to "A".What is the name of your state?

[vjrjr]

Friday 15 June 2007

I was still upset from the events of the previous two days, so I did not talk to "C" until 3pm.
Our conversation was approximately 30 minutes in length. After it, I emailed "A" giving him a report of my conversation with "C". Here is an edited excerpt:

I spoke to "C" for around 30 minutes this afternoon.

Honestly, that kid keeps such a straight face at times that I suspect he just sits there, is very stubborn, and "listens" but ignores most of what is said because his mind is already made up that he is right and that I (or anyone else) is wrong. He definitely has a very controlled anger streak in him and he told me so. "R" also had an angry streak, but his leaked out a little more often.

Just to give you a recap of the disturbing comment, "C" had lunch with "D" and "P" at Pizza Hut buffet Wednesday right after he lost the vote for the location of the Thursday meeting. In essence, this is what "C" said:

"I wonder what the legality is of tampering with someone's brake line so that their brakes would fail before their expected life expectancy?"

Here is the rest as told by "P" to me:
"For the record though, the question seemed placed at a weird time (completely out of the blue), and I wasn't sure if it was a joke, or something completely not work related. To be honest though it was rather odd, and with the whole food incident yesterday, quite possibly related to that. I remember "D" asking what he was talking about later, and the reply was "If I don't tell you, you can't be held responsible, or get in my way." After that point at lunch though, it wasn't brought up again."

In "C"'s defense, "C" states that he was talking about somebody not affiliated with [[our company, customer and project]] at all. I genuinely believe him, but this is a perfect example in point as to what I tried to tell him about people misinterpreting him. (See below...)

In a nutshell, here is what I told "C":

1) You can't say things where you are alluding to causing bodily harm or property damage. If you have a revenge fantasy, keep it to yourself. Even stating something like he did, others have an obligation to mention it because, if they didn't, then, if "C" acted, they'd be abetting and or be charged with conspiracy.

2) I told him that he was lucky. To the best of my knowledge, only Wally knows about this. I told "C" that he "...was lucky both we [[contractors]] and several [[customer employees]] know you as well as we do, but what if [[ Seniormost customer employee and customer project lead]] overheard what you said? He'd fire your ass immediately. An what if, God forbid, somebody heard you say what you did and then really got into an accident because of bad brakes? Guess who's Suspect #1?" Of course, he has "answers" for everything as we talk about the legal and fiscal ramifications.

3) Going on a tangent, I said, "We [[contractors]] and [[customer employees]] know you for the most part because you've been here for so long. However, you want to go to that job in Massachussetts...? I'd be reluctant to send you there because they don't know you."

4) "C" really needs to learn that the real world is not like math and logic - that criminal intent is just as import criminal acts and that perception and guilt by association are a normal part of human nature. If somebody didn't know him and didn't realized that he was just blowing off steam (which is easy to misinterpret because he is so calm in doing so), they might think he's the next Virginia Tech shooter.

5) I told him he already has a reputation among [[coworkers and customer employees]] as being "different" and immature, so the last thing he needs to do is reinforce these. At 25, I told him, I expect him to be more mature. Furthermore, I told him, in general, people pick-up on that he is "different" right away. I said that there's no shortage of stupid, closed-minded people out there who would immediately become suspect of him out of ignorance. When people can't make predictions - especially about other people - they get nervous.... ...and people don't like to feel nervous.

6) Extending on that theme, given the Virginia Tech incident in people's minds, it really doesn't help the situation having people hear other people's revenge fantasies. Especially when the person doing the overhearing doesn't know very well the person having those fantasies.

7) Furthermore, I have an obligation to protect my fellow workers and customers and to not soil [[our company's]] or my customer's reputations. I reiterated that the guys needed to tell me what they did about this incident and I am required to do whatever is necessary to fulfill those obligations. Even though I realize that he is just blowing off steam, I can't be dismissive of a statement like that. I also said " "C", I told "A" that if you did this again, I would recommend termination. No matter how much of an asset you are on the job, there reaches a point when you become a liability...." He starts talking about wrongful termination and I try to tell him the reality of things, but I feel he dismisses most of what I say and has an answer for everything. Not having been a father, I am guess that this is what it can be like raising teenagers.

Side Note:
Seriously, I think he's an example of somebody who's going to have to learn some very valuable lessons from the School of Hard Knox. Laboratory, not classroom, either. By the way, did I ever tell you what "C"'s definition of victory is: It's not proving that he is right, it is proving that the other person is wrong. Keep that in mind when you talk to him. I think this is why the kid just keeps coming back with "answers" and doesn't listen. If he listens and doesn't retort, then it is like he is losing. Many conversations which are supposed to be simple relays of advice or information are often like battles with him unless he solicits that advice or information.

8) I told him that I had already spoken to you and that what you said is that his comments were "inappropriate". I also said that you would talk to him in the normal course that you will talk to all of us.

I basically had to cut the conversation short again today too. 30 minutes was long enough to talk about this and I realized that I was just repeating over and over the same basic stuff. His always having an "answer" is just so frustrating. I think perhaps I should have gone into the conversation simply starting "I'm going to talk; don't say a thing, just clean the wax out of your ears and just listen. When I'm done, then we'll continue and you can say anything you like." However, I actually began this conversation asking for 5 minutes and then saying "This won't be that bad." as we walked outside of [[the building]]. As I began, I quickly fell into his trap trying to prove my position as he constantly had comebacks and rebuttals, i.e., "answers", to what I was saying. I've decided that, in the future when I deal with him, as soon as he starts up with a few "answers", I'll just stop him, say my piece, and, if he comes back with "answers", I'll "punt" and by putting the onus on him that I expect him to be mature enough and intelligent enough to understand what I am saying. I can't be held responsible for being this kid's parents. I must admit that I entertained the thought of doing just that and emailing or chatting with him stating the simple sentence of "Tell me what I think you did that is wrong and why I think it is wrong. If you don't have an answer, think about it and get back to me." That patronizing approach wouldn't have worked though because he would have answered that perfectly, yet, he would have had his "answers" in his mind and nothing would have changed in his mind nor heart. Besides, on matters like this, a patronizing approach wouldn't be conducive toward making him see the perspective that we had. No matter what the situation and with whoever, I would go with a personal and private approach because the non-verbal communication helps me get my point across.

OK, that was the bulk of our conversation outside [[specific building]] about the comment. However, we did speak about some other stuff earlier this week and as we walked back into [[the building]].

[Blue Meanie]

No body is going to read the novella you have posted...Edit out the excess and in 3 hundred words or less what is your problem and what are your legal questions?

[vjrjr]

"C" told me that he would like to get out of this industry. He'd like to go back to school, get a math degree, and teach high school math. You can't see it but I am shaking my head because that is what he originally wanted to do when he went to school the first time! (So, in reality, I guess you know what his "goals" are.) He won't execute on that for awhile though because of his debt situation with his parents involving their closed business which they cannot sell due to environmental issues. It's a long story, but he's basically been supporting them and he is in the hole for big big bucks - I believe that he said $90k. Frankly, the legal system is slow slow and incompetent in that issue that he think "C"'s is going to be screwed. I know that he has some angst or bitterness because he is saddling the entire burden for his family (his sisters are not helping out) and putting his life on hold. "D" told me "C" has doubled the number of credit cards since he was here and that they are all maxed-out paying bills. It's like robbing from Peter to pay Paul. It's gonna catch-up with him sooner or later..... This is just another example of him thinking he knows it all, yet reality is different than theory. I tried to tell him on Monday or Tuesday when I learned about that situation that he should ratchet things up and follow up and get another lawyer if need be - do whatever to get this resolved ASAP. I gotta admit that that conversation raised my blood pressure a bit because, as I told him then, I don't want to see his life get ruined because of other people. Getting frustrated because he never really listens, I cut the conversation short basically saying 'I said my piece, "C". You're an adult and you know what I think and what you should do.' and just relaxed realizing that 1) it's not my problem as long as it doesn't affect his job and 2) *ha ha* no one is shooting at me (thanks - I use that alot now).

Back to "C", part of me has been thinking in the past couple of days that perhaps "C" should be in [[Division Headquarters]]. It would 1) give him the stability (not moving) that you said he wants and 2) render him relatively harmless by being away from customers. Furthermore, 3) he'd be upper level management's problem and they'd really chew him a new @sshole because I am sure he'd piss off the wrong person sooner or later and upper level management will take serious corrective or disciplinary action so that he might just begin to "get it". I realize though that returning to [[Division HQ]] might be an emotional death sentence for him, so he'd probably seek other work, but who knows. That might be better for him anyway and my darker side says that, for us, he'd cease being a liability to [[our company]].

Still, I think that "C" is a valuable asset and, if fostered under the right conditions, he'd be a fantastic worker at [[our company]] beyond doing [[our field]]. He might really enjoy the work in another division, like .... He just needs to grow up and I'm afraid that talking will only do so much and that life is just going to have to kick him in the teeth a few more times before he realizes that he is not the second coming of Einstein. Perhaps, you should remind him of his "engagement" (which was June 29 last year) and "Nigeria". *ha ha*

I'm sorry to yap so much on this and perhaps I'm overblowing it, but I feel it is better to overblow it than to be dismissive and have us lose a job, a career, a reputation, or a life because of ignoring comments like that.

Since that day

"A" is supposed to have a 1-on-1 meeting with all of us as part of the end of fiscal year activities. "A" did speak with "C" about all of this several times and it has not gone well.

In a nutshell, "C" does not realize that what he said about the legality of messing with people's brakes was wrong. Furthermore, he feels - even to this day - that our company has no basis for any disciplinary action.

"A" and I did not wish to escalate the issue and preferred to keep it among our group. Unfortunately, "A" was thinking about transferring all of us to his new boss, "E" so "A" could concentrate on the other projects that he is assigned to. As part of discussions with "E", he mentioned the incident with "C". "E", whom no one in our group other than "A" has met, has taken it very seriously and wanted "A" to follow company policy and officially discipline "C".

On Friday 22 June, "A" sent me a preliminary version of his disciplinary letter to C" which would be carbon-copied to "Corporate". I am somewhat more "legal" in a sense and cross-check policies etc and helped "A" wordsmith some of it. (I have not seen any final copy).

"A" again spoke with "C" on Saturday 23 June about the incident.

"C" then had a chat conversation with "D". Again, "D" was a witness to the comment uttered by "C" and was a college friend of "C".

On Monday, 25 June, "D" then showed me a transcript of that chat with "D" (below). In this transcript, "Hun460" is "C" and "WlfBrigade" is "D".

Hun460 (6:18:41 PM): hi
WlfBrigade (6:19:09 PM): sup...
WlfBrigade (6:19:40 PM): what can i not do for ya?
Hun460 (6:19:43 PM): who knows
WlfBrigade (6:21:12 PM): this is true...few ppl im me unless they want something
Hun460 (6:21:40 PM): I just found out that because of "V" I might have to find a new job really soon
WlfBrigade (6:23:00 PM): oh and why is this?
Hun460 (6:23:55 PM): because he felt telling "A" what happened over a week ago was not good enough and when above "A"'s head
WlfBrigade (6:25:44 PM): oh didn't know about that...but "V" is management as well so i don't know if it is over "A"'s head
Hun460 (6:25:53 PM): "V" is not management
Hun460 (6:26:12 PM): he is still under "A"
Hun460 (6:26:39 PM): "A" is not happy that things are going the way they are
Hun460 (6:27:44 PM): "V" said I was threatening people and I could carry it out.
WlfBrigade (6:29:38 PM): i'm not involved in this and it seems only a repeat of earlier events when i first got here...so i'd rather keep it that way
Hun460 (6:29:46 PM): you are involved
Hun460 (6:30:02 PM): I never made a threat to anyone
Hun460 (6:30:23 PM): you were there at pizza and "A" will want to talk to you
WlfBrigade (6:30:47 PM): u unnerved me and pat both...i'm the one who brought it up with "V" since i know he plays the father figure with u
WlfBrigade (6:31:13 PM): i wanted him to talk to ya and tell ya how u should never say such crap
Hun460 (6:31:22 PM): I never asked "V" to be a father figure and I hate that he tries to be
WlfBrigade (6:33:22 PM): well he does play the role though or atleast did...i'll talk to "A" and i'll tell him what was said and my opinion is about it
Hun460 (6:34:01 PM): well it should not have gone to "V" in the first place
WlfBrigade (6:34:50 PM): maybe but too late to change things know
Hun460 (6:36:32 PM): thanks
WlfBrigade (6:39:07 PM): hey man u shouldn't have said it in the first place...if i hadn't told "V" it would have been pat
Hun460 (6:39:19 PM): there is nothing wrong with what I said
Hun460 (6:41:02 PM): i gtg
WlfBrigade (6:41:56 PM): there is...the idea of tampering with an individuals breaks regardless of how u word it is still 1 stupid to even suggest doin such a thing and 2 is just stupid
Hun460 (6:45:27 PM): i guess you are not the friend i thought you were
WlfBrigade (7:14:24 PM): dude i wanted "V" to talk to ya and get ya straight that what ya said is dangerous for urself and others regardless of how ya ment it...if i didn't speak up and u did frig with someones breaks i would 1 live with that the rest of my life and 2 can be held liable crimanily...if means friendship toasted then that is ur choice not mine and i'll move on...i do wish ya the best of luck though in life regardless due u are at heart a decet person regardless of the stupid things u say

[vjrjr]

After reading that, I realized that "C" did not have an understanding of how the incident has escalated, so I emailed him the same day (Monday 25 June):

"C",

I spoke with "D". It appears that you have a misunderstanding about how this got escalated, so I am writing to clarify the picture for you.

First, "D" is right in that either he or "P" should have come forward to me regarding your comment. Officially, such a comment violates Paragraph B "Standards of Conduct for All [[Company]] Employees" of the section "Involuntary Termination" or Personnel Policy [[policy number]] "Termination of Employment".

B. Standards of Conduct for All [[Company]] Employees

All [[Company]] employees are expected to perform their duties effectively and efficiently; to follow [[Company]] rules and their supervisors' directives; to display loyalty and integrity; and to avoid conduct that is illegal, improper, or otherwise brings discredit on the company or interferes with its efficient operation. Any employee who acts in a manner inconsistent with these basic principles is subject to discipline, up to and including immediate termination.

As far as I am concerned, you are correct that I am not officially management. Nonetheless, like "D" and "P", I am required to bring this to my management's attention, which is "A". Specifically, what I did was:
1) I told "A" about the incident.
2) At the same time, I told "A" that I would talk to you about it.
3) I then reported to him the outcome that conversation.

I expected that "A" would then talk to you when it was your turn for a private session with him like he has had with all of us.

The biggest reason that I had to inform "A" was that I - or any [[Company]] employee, for that matter - would be negligent in my duties if I had not informed my management of such a comment. Suppose someone here learning of the incident brought it to "A"'s attention while I made no mention of it. "A" then certainly would have been irked with me and rightfully so. Worse, suppose someone deliberately went to "A" because I specifically did not report this incident? I definitely would have been in trouble and the advancement of my career at [[our company]] would have ended.

Anyway, officially, once I informed "A", my obligations were done. Personally, I had no desire whatsoever for things to escalate beyond "A"'s knowing because he and I more-or-less considered this a simple in-house issue.

I cannot speak for "A" and I may be incorrect in some of what I say, but "A" had to inform his manager of this for the same reasons that any [[Company]] employee should. However, you may not know this, "A" has been debating officially transferring us to his new boss, "E" due to committment issues. If he had done that, "E" - then being our boss - would have to know the situation since he would have taken over. It is "E" who pressured "A" to "go formal" and follow Policy [[policy number]]. "E" was actually contemplating the legal ramifications of all of this just as I had predicted when I spoke to you on June 15 in private.

Whether you understand or not, I hope you can see that mine and "A"'s hands were effectively tied on reporting this. While we would have preferred to keep this entire affair "in-house", circumstances prevented that from happening.

Personally, I do not feel that what you said is worthy of termination, because I know you better than the upper level managers. Nonetheless, my interpretation has been that no one here ("A", me, others) can seem to impart to you the seriousness of saying what you did. Knowing how "E" reacted, I hope that you now understand that upper level management considers what you said to be serious.

By the way, on a slight side note, I did the same thing with [[former employee]] "R" after "R" said some disquieting comments about he and his brother harming you during the "C" Versus "R" War. I was not in authority - and technically "R" was above me - but I did mention to "A" that I did not like those comments. "R" always seemed a little to edgy to me - like he might explode - so, I was entertaining filing a restraining order to protect us and you mostly. Imagine if you had learned of what "R" said and no one spoke up. How safe would you feel? How would you feel if you knew that your coworkers who knew and did nothing or said nothing? I felt that I had an obligation to you, as my co-worker, to do what I could to ensure your safety and ours.

Take from all of this what you will.

I realize that you might not want to, but I am happy to talk to you about this or anything. I still consider you my friend and one of my favorite people and I only want the best for you always. The last thing I want to do is get you into more hot water because, as it is playing out, this is not good for anyone. You are always welcome to visit the lab. If you ever want, I am happy to come to [["C''s building]] and talk.

Take care,
"V"

[vjrjr]

Side note: "R" was an employee in our company who had a difficult relationship with "C" this past year. "R" left our company in March, but is still subcontracting part time. He works from his home.

Today, "A" had lunch with "D" and "P" to get first-hand evidence of what "C" had said. Also today, "A" sent an email to the group that "E" will be visiting on Thursday. I chatted with "C" today and he said that "E" will be speaking to "C" over the phone tomorrow and will speak to "D" and "P" on Thursday.

This is the chat conversation that I had with "C" today. It concerns me because it is obvious that "C" does not "get it".

"V" [[I asked if "C" was there.]]
"C" ok
"V" sorry - i was talking to "B"...
"V" *sigh*
"V" Because you weren't going to go to [customer employee W's]] party, he invited *shudder* "R" *shudder*. DOH!
"V" Of course, "R" email "W" with stupid comments. [[this was about drowning "C" at the party, but I did not relay this to "C" in the chat.]]
"V" Anyway, now it sucks that you aren't going - I was really hoping you would. "R" effs-up my Feng Shui.
"V" Know what I mean?
"C" yes I do
"C" I just feel as though I am not welcome
"C" with everything that is going on
"V" You were definitely welcome
"V" You know, each and everyone of us goes thru something like you are.
"C" you should look at it from my point of view
"V" I did - as did "A"
"C" I feel as though I am being persecuted
"V" "C", I've been laid-off a few times. Each time, I was given notice, but I still had to come into work before I finally left. It was awkward, but it was OK - I still got paid, so I had a job to do.
"V" Try not to feel that way because you're not. Being persecuted is like being picked-out.
"V" And we all still like you here. You are still friends with everyone here.
"V" When is your flight to CHI?
"C" Well "R" threatened me and nothing happened. I don’t even make a threat and this stuff happens. [[ "C" did not know of "R"'s comment some months ago until I mentioned it to him recently. At the time or "R"'s comment, he was technically senior to me and I believed that no genuine threat was being made. I did mention it to "A" shortly thereafter. ]]
"C" Sunday morning
"V" OK
"V" Well, about "R", you have a point in a way. At that time, I probably didn't even think that much about it in terms of disciplinary action. I certainly was not in charge back then, so I could not talk to Rob in any sort of authoritative capacity. (Officially, he was my superior.) Anyway, in the course of talking with "A" giving him updates (he was in CT then), I told him that I was a little irked about "R" saying stuff like he did. For all I know, "A" did say something. You got messed-up by timing because of this "E" guy. If "E" was not "A"'s new boss and "A" was possibly going to put us under "E"'s scope, this would all be blown over by now.
"V" "E" is coming Thursday. You and "A" have to talk to him?
"C" I have been talking to "A"
"V" OK
"C" Nothing happened with "R"
"C" I will be talking to "E" tomorrow morning on the phone
"C" or atleast "A" is going to try to set it up
"C" but anyway my day is over and I am going home
"V" - if you need me to be a "character witness" for you, I will. "E" knows nothing about you, but we know that you really didn't mean anything by it.
"C" as far as I see it nothing was said
"C" well nothing that [[our company]] can do anything about
"C" I did not break policy
"V" OK, well I won't debate you on that, but others see it differently.
"C" I was on my own time with a friend from college
"C" I can't be held by [[our company]] for what I say
"V" Yes you can
"C" nope
"C" by law I can
"C" can't*
"V" Absolutely - your actions, whether or not they are on company time - are a reflection on the company. Because of that, it affects the company and they have a vested economic interest.
"V" There are oceans of precedent on this and you should ask your sister about it [[ "C"'s sister is a lawyer. ]]
"C" but I am leaving now
...
"V" OK, I guess I'll talk to you tomorrow

What I did not get a chance to tell "C" was also that his statement also is potentially criminal and that our company might have to report it. I felt that asking that "C"'s asking "D" and "P" about the legality of severing brake lines at least raises the suspicion of possible criminal intent. At the minimum, we immediately thought he might take action against "B" who was his nemesis in the Pizza Hut / Chinese buffet vote. However, "C"'s follow-on comment related to me by "P" (see above and below):

".... I remember "D" asking what he was talking about later, and the reply was "If I don't tell you, you can't be held responsible, or get in my way." After that point at lunch though, it wasn't brought up again."

is disturbing. While I understand this is just a revenge fantasy, others may not interpret it as such. Once "C" mentioned these comments, I feel he placed "P" and "D" in legal jeopardy. At the very minimum, I feel that this violates company policy:

"[[Company employees are ]] to display loyalty and integrity; and to avoid conduct that is illegal, improper, or otherwise brings discredit on the company or interferes with its efficient operation. Any employee who acts in a manner inconsistent with these basic principles is subject to discipline, up to and including immediate termination."

My question in all of this is that I am concerned that "C" will be terminated. Even today, he still does not understand the basis the company has for discipline, let alone termination. Am I mistaken in this? Does the company have grounds for disciplinary action or not? If "C" was terminated, would he have grounds for a wrongful termination suit?

I appreciate any thoughts on this matter.

[Blue Meanie]

Did you even read my post??? No one is going to read part ONE never mind 2,3,4 ad your postscript!! Edit down to 3 hundred words or less..

[vjrjr]

Originally Posted by baystategirl

Did you even read my post??? No one is going to read part ONE never mind 2,3,4 ad your postscript!! Edit down to 3 hundred words or less..

I'm afraid I can't do that since the story contains considerable evidence. When I read the rules of this place, it stated to give as much detail as possible, so I did.

[Blue Meanie]

[quote=vjrjr;1659934]I'm afraid I can't do that since the story contains considerable evidence. When I read the rules of this place, it stated to give as much detail as possible, so I did.

QUOTE]

Because I recommended that you edit you post so that it would actually get reviewed??? Nobody on this forum is going to read your post as it is. NOBODY!
But leave it as is and see how many responses you receive.

[cbg]

Your post is simply too long for this forum. I'm not even going to try to read it.

However, here is some basic information on wrongful terminations.

A wrongful term does not mean one that is unfair, unjust, unexpected, or for something you didn't do. The lack of receiving warnings or notices does not a wrongful term make.

49 out of 50 states are condiered at-will states, and the exception (Montana) recognizes the at-will doctrine in some situations. In an at-will state, there does not have to be "grounds" for a termination any more than you have to have "grounds" to quit. You can quit at any time and for any reason; your employer can fire you at any time and for any reason not specifically prohibited by law. You can legally be fired because you root for the Yankees and your boss is a Red Sox fan. You can legally be fired because your boss doesn't like your hat. You can legally be fired because your boss got up in a bad mood this morning and decided to take it out on you. Unless there is a specific law that says your employer is prohibited from firing you for the reason he did, it is not a wrongful termination.

You also mentioned the First Amendment in your subject heading. The First Amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT from abridging your speech. It does not mention your employer. You can legally be fired because you said something your boss doesn't like.

Now, if you still have questions, respond with a SHORT post (100 words or less) and I'll do my best to answer. Remember, I said SHORT. If I wanted to read a novel, I have a more interesting one in my briefcase.

[ecmst12]

There is a difference between giving enough detail for the other posters to be able to fully understand the situation, and posting every single detail of the situation regardless of relevance.

[xylene]

Bottom line.

Some guy this guy works with wanted to go to Pizza Hut. He can't, so he exhibits juvenille behavior, and this is not the first time he has done so.

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by xylene

Bottom line.

Some guy this guy works with wanted to go to Pizza Hut. He can't, so he exhibits juvenille behavior, and this is not the first time he has done so.

Bah, too long. Please cut it down to 14 letters, 6 numerals, an 2 hieroglyphics.

[Ozark_Sophist]

Now I'm afraid to go to Chinese for lunch - will my brakes work?

Look, Alphabet man, you are not the boss. Let the boss take care of it. You probably shouldn't have said anything to cut-the-brake-line-man in the first place.