Wrongful Suspension

Illinois

My dad works for a union and is a parking attendant at night - not much traffic, so he is the only employee. He works within a high-rise building and the main (and only) garage door to the outside world is locked - and for good reason - so that no one can just jump in a car and drive out, they'd have to be let out by an employee. So while my dad was in the basement retrieving another vehicle for -another- tenant (building has 5 floors worth of parked cars with keys in them: basement, main floor, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd), a woman drives up and can't get out because the door is locked. She honks her horn (even though there is a sign stating that she cannot honk her horn) so as to be let out. My dad hears the horn but doesn't open the garage door for her because it is company policy NOT to let anyone out unless you are on the main floor and actually SEE the person you are letting out - attendants pretty much know 99% of the tenants in the building, so the policy is an obvious step towards preventing car theft.

My dad makes it up to the main floor, and the lady greets him with her hands up in the air (implying, "what's the problem", or "where were you") and so he opened the door for her, she drove off, and he went about his business.

Come the next day, he finds out that she complained to a higher up that her car had been -scratched- and she claims that my -father- did it. Without -any- proof what so ever, my dads manager suspended my dad for two days. He did nothing but follow strict guide lines (not letting anyone out without permission) and was suspended based on what an annoyed tenant claimed. I wasn't there, but my father truly is not the type to even -consider- doing anything such as violating another persons belongings for any reason under the sun, let alone because some annoyed tenant threw her hands up at him and drove off. And I don't know whether or not her car was scratched - maybe she noticed a new scratch and blamed it on him? Or perhaps she scratched it herself (some people do go to extreme lengths, although I do doubt that's the case here)? Or maybe even a small piece of -something- fell from the ceiling and dinged her car? I don't know. What I do know is that my dad was suspended based on one tenants assumption, not on ANY fact what so ever.

So I have two part question: 1.) Does he have any legal recourse? And 2.) In your opinion, is it worth pursuing?

Both of us think that if it's only two days, he should just let it slide in hopes that it'll all just blow over once he returns. And that way, you don't make a mountain out of a molehill and have managers and higher ups looking at you like a "problem." You lose out on 2 days pay, but you get a nice, 4-day weekend, and don't get under the skin of any higher ups.

On the other side of the coin, tho', I wonder whether or not this will linger on his work record and whether or not it can or will have any affect on him in the near or even latter future. And if he allows this to step by that easily - which I would assume MAY be taken as an admission to guilt (?) - what next?

We're leaning 99.9% towards not doing anything, but my dad is really annoyed by the way this played out and so I decided to come on here and solicit a few opinions. So what are your thoughts?

Thanks in advance for any (and all) the help.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

"Wrongful" in employment law does not mean, for something you didn't do; it means ILLEGAL. So this is not a wrongful suspension under employment law. It may be unfair, but it was not illegal. So no legal recourse in that sense of the word.

He should, however, talk to his union steward about any recourse he may have through the union.

There is nothing you can do. Unless you have a legally enforceable contract that says otherwise, it is not illegal to discipline, suspend, or terminate an employee based upon a mere accussation with no evidence.

edit: I missed the part about the union. There may be some recourse there but it wouldn't be in the form of a lawsuit.

Your dad should talk to the union about this.

He should read the contract and see what the discipline policy is.

I am somewhat surprised that an unpaid suspension was imposed without their involvment

He needs to keep his head down around management until this blows over.

Is your Dad a member of the union or is he employed by the union?

Wholeheartedly agree, it makes all the difference in the world. If your dad is a member of the parking garage attendant's union,he should have a grievance procedure that he can go through before disciplinary action is taken, some way that he can get it on record that he totally denies doing damage to the woman's car and disagrees with this suspension.

However, if he is a non-union employee of a union, in their parking garage, and this woman was some sort of hotshot in the organization, she can pretty much demand he be fired or demoted or suspended just because she wants it to happen, and he has no rights in the matter at all.

What I do not understand is when she claims he scratched her car. Did he park it for her earlier? How, if she got her car, got in it and got down to the gate where she honked and demanded to be let out without his assistance, does she think your father scratched the car. Did he key her while she was driving out?

Either way, it all depends. Is he a union member?

You're wondering what you and your dad can do. The answer for you is nothing. You have no legal standing.

cbg said:

"Wrongful" in employment law does not mean, for something you didn't do; it means ILLEGAL. So this is not a wrongful suspension under employment law. It may be unfair, but it was not illegal. So no legal recourse in that sense of the word.

He should, however, talk to his union steward about any recourse he may have through the union.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

swalsh411 said:

There is nothing you can do. Unless you have a legally enforceable contract that says otherwise, it is not illegal to discipline, suspend, or terminate an employee based upon a mere accussation with no evidence.

edit: I missed the part about the union. There may be some recourse there but it wouldn't be in the form of a lawsuit.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

xylene said:

He needs to keep his head down around management until this blows over.

Click to expand...

Yea', exactly! Thanks!

eerelations said:

Is your Dad a member of the union or is he employed by the union?

Click to expand...

commentator said:

Either way, it all depends. Is he a union member?

Click to expand...

The English language can be oh, so tricky. He's just a member. Sorry!

commentator said:

What I do not understand is when she claims he scratched her car. Did he park it for her earlier? How, if she got her car, got in it and got down to the gate where she honked and demanded to be let out without his assistance, does she think your father scratched the car. Did he key her while she was driving out?

Click to expand...

Forgot to mention that the garage is not only used and occupied by the public, but also by tenants that rent within that same building. So the lady stepped out for whatever reason and then returned, parked her car, and went up to her apartment. She claimed that he must've scratched her car overnight.

And just to fill you guys in a couple other things - which I now know -still- doesn't matter. My dad, while driving him to the city the day I posted, went on to tell me that she's "a little batty." He said the manager (that suspended him) knows that, as well. Whether or not she's a "hot-shot" basket case, I don't know, but word around the building is that she's not "all there."

He also went on to tell me that the local supermarket clerk told him that he's actually kicked the lady out of his store on numerous occasions for harassing him and his employees. And the cake topper: He tells me that she's claimed that (((3))) (not 1, or 2, but THREE) other employees "scratched" her car, as well. I see now that she's not only a liar, but that she doesn't even bother to change up her story a bit and sadly, no one even cares. He also tells me that the same lady, because of her complaints, got 2 doorman fired. I mean you never know what anyone else did (especially doorman working the night shift), but this is really starting to wreak of BS, IMO.

If my dad has no recourse, the only thing I suggested he do is NOT sign any paper work regarding this matter, because it may come back to bite him in the bee-hind. He told me there's a "3 strikes out" policy in place. So I figure signing any report regarding this incident would basically be an admission of guilt - when he's neither done anything wrong, nor admitting to doing anything wrong. So let's hope she (the manager) doesn't ask him to sign anything so that this can just blow over and -off- the record. Otherwise we'll have to speak with the union about it and see where it goes from there.

If there's anything else anyone else would like to add or ask, feel free. Otherwise, thanks for all of your help and advice - it's appreciated!

And apologies on the late reply - internet was down for a bit due to a storm. I saw sunlight for the first time since '96, tho', and it was quite pleasant.

Whoa!!!!!

Telling him not to sign anything is very, very bad advice. Refusal to sign can be considered insubordination, which is a firing offense. Signing does not mean that he agrees that he did something wrong - it means that he has been advised of management's view on the matter. If they are looking for a reason to fire him, refusing to sign something they want him to sign is handing them a reason to fire him on a silver platter.

If they do ask him to sign anything, HE SHOULD DO IT. If he finds what is on the page objectionable, then he can add "signed under protest" or "disagree with contents" or something. BUT HE SHOULD NOT REFUSE TO SIGN.

Really?

I mean I understand the whole being able to fire you because "you smirked oddly at someone" thing, but not signing a sheet of paper stating you've done something wrong because you haven't done anything wrong didn't in the least bit strike me as being bad advice. If you say so, tho', I guess.

As I said, signing does not mean you agree that you did something wrong. It means that you are acknowledging management. Big, BIG difference.

cbg said:

As I said, signing does not mean you agree that you did something wrong.

Click to expand...

News to me, man.

My instinct tells me not to sign anything unless I was guilty of what I was being accused of - it just seems logical to me. "I didn't do it, but they told me to sign it and so I did" might save your ass from the streets but I'm not sure it would fly should any further problems arise that require higher-ups to delve into your history.

Oh...and is what you're saying an assumption? Or is there any online information you could possibly provide to corroborate what you're saying? Any laws or what not that state that signing an incident report is -not- an admission of guilt? Or any other information (or lack thereof) that would lead to this belief?

Thanks!

Tell you what. When your father is handed a document to sign that says something along the lines of " I hereby admit that on such and such a day I committed such and such an offense," tell him not to sign that unless he did. And then come back and we'll talk about it some more.

However, if he receives what is far more likely, "The following complaint was made (note - the complaint WAS made) and I acknowledge that such and such a manager spoke to me about it (note -such and such a manager DID talk to him about it)" then that is NOT going to "bite him in the ass" as you so eloquently put it. What's going to "bite him in the ass" is him saying, "No way, man, I'm not signing that" or the equivalent.

Is there a statute out there that says somewhere, "If your employer gives you a write up and you sign it that is an admission of guilt" - if you refuse to sign you're safe?" No, there isn't. But 30 years of experience tells me I'm right.

Tell me, where is YOUR backup that signing anything is an "admission of guilt" and that if he refuses to sign it the employer can't do anything to him?

About the only possible recourse this person would have, if he were terminated, would be to file for unemployment insurance. And in the decision whether or not he receives unemployment insurance after his termination, it does matter if he refused to cooperate with management.

I'm in favor of a "signing this disciplinary notice to cooperate with management, but not in any way agreeing to or admitting the wrongdoing herein mentioned" statement written in. But there's no law in place about signing or not signing a disciplinary notice, because there are very few labor laws about what they can and can't fire your for, because as we've pointed out to you, they could fire you for just about anything.

If they cannot prove that they had a good job related reason to terminate you, then you probably will be able to receive unemployment benefits when terminated. But if your father's union is not going to help him grieve this disciplinary action, he really doesn't have much recourse. They probably will not fire him. He should keep written notes concerning what he has been told by those other people. If he is terminated or falsely accused by her again, they might come in handy.

cbg said:

Tell you what. When your father is handed a document to sign that says something along the lines of " I hereby admit that on such and such a day I committed such and such an offense," tell him not to sign that unless he did."

Click to expand...

Okay, so then this statement:

cbg said:

"Signing does not mean that he agrees that he did something wrong"

Click to expand...

Was incorrect...correct? It CAN mean that he did something wrong?

cbg said:

What's going to "bite him in the ass" is him saying, "No way, man, I'm not signing that" or the equivalent.

Click to expand...

That's what I meant by my "might save your ass from the streets" comment. That by signing it, he won't risk losing his job.

cbg said:

Tell me, where is YOUR backup that signing anything is an "admission of guilt" and that if he refuses to sign it the employer can't do anything to him?

Click to expand...

I am asking questions. Having "30 years experience", you should know that -you- are the one with the claims, so -you- are the one with the burden of proving what it is that you're saying, not me.

And there's really no need to get all defensive and condensing because some random internet username questions some other random internet username. I don't know you or how much experience you have, so take it easy.