mcdonlds wrongful termination

[skittles3444]

Hey my name is Jessica and I am from Oregon,

My sister has worked for Mcdonalds for about a year. she gave out a free drink and the manager in charge caught her and gave her a warning and it was never talked about until the next day when the head boss asked her if she gave away a free drink. she said yes and he said your fired, here is your check, you need to leave and that was it. The Manager in charged failed to say that the drink did indeed get paid for. Her record is clean and she has never gotten into any trouble with the company before this incident. The owner of the store is the managers son and they both wont talk to her. She tried to talk to the manager and he refuses and the owner of the store wont email her back. Since she is only 18 and this is her first job it has left a refrence on her job record and she is unable to get a job because of it. One of the managers that works there said she could sue them because it wasnt documented correctly and she cant resolve the situation cause they refuse to talk to her.

Thank you

Jessica

 

[Beth3]

My sister has worked for Mcdonalds for about a year. she gave out a free drink and the manager in charge caught her and gave her a warning and it was never talked about until the next day when the head boss asked her if she gave away a free drink. she said yes and he said your fired, here is your check, you need to leave and that was it. The Manager in charged failed to say that the drink did indeed get paid for. But only after she was caught giving out a free drink, right?

Her record is clean and she has never gotten into any trouble with the company before this incident. It's perfectly lawful to fire someone for a single instance of misconduct, even if they had a spotless record previously.

The owner of the store is the managers son and they both wont talk to her. She tried to talk to the manager and he refuses and the owner of the store wont email her back. Clearly they've made their decision and they see no point in engaging your sister in a debate about their decision to fire her. They also may be wondering how many other items she may have given out for free before they caught her doing it.

Since she is only 18 and this is her first job it has left a refrence on her job record and she is unable to get a job because of it. One of the managers that works there said she could sue them because it wasnt documented correctly and she cant resolve the situation cause they refuse to talk to her. Um, managers at McDonalds aren't exactly legal experts although they make a darn good French Fry. Your sister has absolutely no basis to sue them nor do they have to speak with her to "resolve" the situation. For them, the situation was resolved when they terminated her.

Giving away free beverages/food is stealing from the employer. Same as if your sister had worked for American Eagle and gave a T-shirt to a friend and never rang up the sale.

Before someone else gives you/your sister more misinformation, yes, they can tell other employers why she was fired if they are contacted for a reference. This isn't going to result in a lifelong employment problem for your sister. When she interviews for new jobs, she needs to tell the employers why she was fired and that she made a terrible error in judgement that will NOT ever be repeated. If she's honest and sincere, that will go a long way. Employers do understand that 18 year olds can make very foolish decisions at times.

 

[cbg]

Agree absolutely with Beth. This does not come even remotely close to meeting the legal definition of a wrongful termination. They have no legal obligation to warn her, counsel her, document the issue, give her a second chance, or anything else. They are free to fire her for a first offense. She has absolutely no basis to sue them.

 

[skittles3444]

jessica from oregon,

Hey thanks for the comments I really appreciated them. I just thought that is was unfair that she got fired when another employee cussed him out and he came back an hour before closing and got his job back. It was also unfair that another worker stole from them and got written up over ten times and still got hired back. There were alot of other workers that did way worse that what she did and she is the only one that gets in trouble for it.

I also think that as a manager you need to act professional and not wanting to talk to her is unprofessional. She just wanted to talk to him to make things peaceful so he doesn't leave her a bad reference because that was what stopped her from getting this last job she got interviewed for.

Thanks again,


Jessica

 

[cbg]

It may indeed be unfair. But just because it's unfair doesn't make it illegal.

 

[billyga]

In Georgia, I was told by a lawyer, an employer can terminate you for any reason, however, it is discriminatory if other employees have been given passes for similar incidents and not been fired and a suit can be filed against them.

 

[Beth3]

That is not accurate. Inconsistent application of an employer's policy is NOT prohibited discrimination. It is only prohibited discrimination if the inconsistent application of policy is BECAUSE of an employee's age, race, gender, national origin, religion, or some other protected characteristic.

 

[cbg]

Billy, that's almost but not entirely right. The missing part is, if the difference can be traced to the employee's membership in a protected group.

If two employees, both of whom have been there for three months and have a clean record, commit the same offense; one is male and one is female; and the male is reprimanded but the female is fired, she could probably make a good case for gender discrimination. The same would be true if one is Caucasion and one is Hispanic; if one is Christian and one is Muslim, etc. That's because gender, race and religion are all protected characteristics, and there is (in this hypothetical example) no other non-discriminatory reason to explain the difference in treatment.

But if two employees who have been there the same length of time commit the same offense, but one has a clean record and the other has already several writeups, it is NOT discrimination if the one with several offenses is fired and the other isn't. If two employees commit the same offense, but one has been there for six years and the other only three months, it is NOT discrimination if the one who has only been there three months is fired. That's because the length of time an employee has been with the company, or an employee's record of writeups., is NOT protected under the law.

NOTHING in the law says that each and every employee has to be treated exactly the same no matter what. It only says that you can't base the differences on a characteristic protected by law.