Legal requirements of manager/company at firing

[eerelations]

Illegal retaliation means that you were fired for reporting your employer's unlawful behaviour to the legislative bodies that regulate your employer's behaviour. Nowhere in any of your posts have I been able to find even a hint that you did this.

Questions:

1. If you have found three lawyers who will take your case for free, why are you wasting your time (and ours!) by posting here?
   
2. Please point us to the cases presented here in these forums that subsequently won in court. Please explain how you know with such certainty that the cases here and the ones ion court are the same cases.

 

[r34498]

And under what law did they say you had a case, may I ask?

I'm calling BS on this one. The facts as you have presented them do not come even close to providing a wrongful termination claim, let alone one that three attorneys would take on contingency. Either you presented them with completely different facts than you provided us, or you're a liar. One or the other.

I particularly like the way you managed to get three different appointments with three different lawyers, on the morning of the day where most places and all state and Federal offices, are closed for the holiday.

Wow! I THOUGHT that this site was staffed with professional adults. I worked the phones and legalmatch last week on behalf of this employee, who is now deciding which lawyer to use and was seeking additional input to guide that decision, as they each said slightly different amounts (although close to one another). As with everything in life, negotiation is a big part of law and these lawyers felt that the company would rather settle than fight for their reputation and expose their questionable data in court. The employee doesn't care if a dime of settlement is ever reached, as long as the company's lies to elderly, vulnerable clients are exposed! You have NO basis to call me a liar!

P.S. The employee convinced an elderly grandmother to use the services based upon their advertised efficacy rates and the head of the state board of mental health examiners is also a lawyer who has had her eye on this company for years, but never had inside proof of the discrepancy before. There is a long line of people who have complaints about this company, so the wrongful termination falls under the public policy portion of the law (which should have been clear from the explaination of the company as an alternative health care provider)

 

[cbg]

I said EITHER you gave the attorneys different facts than you gave us, OR you were a liar. And I stand by that.

The facts as you present them do not support a wrongful termination claim.

I notice you have not provided the laws that supposedly were violated. Why not, I wonder? Even in negotiation, there has to be some claim of a legal violation. What was it?

 

[r34498]

I said EITHER you gave the attorneys different facts than you gave us, OR you were a liar. And I stand by that.

The facts as you present them do not support a wrongful termination claim.

I notice you have not provided the laws that supposedly were violated. Why not, I wonder? Even in negotiation, there has to be some claim of a legal violation. What was it?

You wonder why I didn't provide exact statute numbers? Surely you can deduce that I don't know the specific stautes because I'm not a lawyer - but the lawyers that I saw, did know. There are state laws against practicing as a mental health facility without a licence and against fraudulent advertising...and against terminating an employee for reporting such activity.

It's amazing that reputable lawyers won't give an opinion on a potential case without a thorough consultation with many follow up questions (each that I did took almost an hour), because they know that there are many factors and sub-factors that can change everything, yet "lawyers" here, shoot out bullet opinions based on quick summaries and rather than respectfully ask those follow up questions, insist that "there is no case" so definitively. You are correct that I wasted my time here, but I was seeking more info to help ascertain which lawyer who offered to take the case had the most reasonable assessment of damages.

Why so hostile????

 

[eerelations]

Again, illegal retaliation means that you were fired for reporting your employer's unlawful behaviour to the legislative bodies that regulate your employer's behaviour. Nowhere in any of your posts have I been able to find even a hint that you did this.

Given that you evidently didn't report your employer's unlawful behaviour to the legislative bodies that regulate your employer's behaviour, your employer's retaliatory actions are perfectly legal.

Finally, until you're able to point us to the specific cases presented here in these forums that subsequently won in court, we will continue to believe that you're BSing about this too.

 

[pattytx]

What eerelations said.

 

[cbg]

There are state laws against practicing as a mental health facility without a licence and against fraudulent advertising...and against terminating an employee for reporting such activity.

Nothing you have posted up to now indicates that this was what was going on. We do not read minds and the crystal ball is out of order.

As I said, the lawyers you allegedly spoke to did not have the same facts we did.

 

[pattytx]

What cbg said. I went back and reread all your posts, OP. This is the first you have ever said of illegal behavior. And you still haven't told us whether you reported any of this to the applicable regulatory authority.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Your original questions had nothing to do with anything other than the legality of having co-workers sit in on a termination meeting, whether the presence of an HR rep is required, and when final payment must be made.

When none of that would fly we suddenly get into "retaliation" territory, but this was based on the expression of "concerns" directly to the CEO--not any regulatory agency.

When that didn't fly, now it's "Oh yeah? Well, I talked to three lawyers and blah blah blah..." Which might be true. If they were three stupid lawyers.

So--yes, co-workers can sit in on the meeting. No, an HR rep isn't required. No, they don't have to pay you right then. And no, it's not illegal retaliation. Cue the "I didn't hear what I wanted to hear" hissy fit.

Incidentally r34498--The back-up plan is apparently "How much money will you pay me to shut up about your shady business practices?" so get off your high horse about how awful this company is. Your "friend" obviously isn't too concerned about the company continuing on its merry way as long as she gets some cash out of the deal.

Also, two points of correction:

I understand that this forum is set up to discourage lawsuits

This forum is set up to help people gain a practical understanding of legal reality.

And...

Thanks for the opinions.

They weren't opinions. They were facts.

 

[pattytx]

I think Charlotte is 100% on track with this one.

Don't let the door knock bump your behind you on your way out.

 

[r34498]

wow...

Okay, I have no need to convince you of anything....My follow up questions were of a different nature. In most matters, there are many aspects to human interactions. I intentially didn't explain the whole darn thing, because I had questions about particular specifics.

Again, I apologize for not being an expert on the law. How about you guys ask me a question about the formation causes and timing effects of parasitic transistors on CMOS ICs at 40degrees??? Make sure that you ask every conceivable aspect that might be pertinent, so that I don't call you a liar for leaving something out or for asking another related question. Geezzz!

What a crappy resource this site is - I thought that this was a place that one could go to discuss an issue, with helpful, professional adults. There was absolutely no reason to be condescending and derogatory...guess lawyers have the rep they do for a reason.

Thanks for your oh so professional opinions.

 

[>Charlotte<]

How about you guys ask me a question about the formation causes and timing effects of parasitic transistors on CMOS ICs at 40degrees???

Well if I do, I'm sure as heck not going to read your answer and then claim I talked to an expert on the formation causes and timing effects of parasitic transistors on CMOS ICs at 40 degrees who says you're wrong.

 

[cbg]

Look, pal. When you're asking for free advice from volunteers, it's up to you to give us the right information. It's not up to us to figure out every possible permutation of the few facts you offer, and then not only pull teeth to get the information, but then spoonfeed you what's needed.

The answer you get is only as good as the information you provide.

 

[r34498]

Look, pal. When you're asking for free advice from volunteers, it's up to you to give us the right information. It's not up to us to figure out every possible permutation of the few facts you offer, and then not only pull teeth to get the information, but then spoonfeed you what's needed.

The answer you get is only as good as the information you provide.

The answers are fine...the comments about being a liar or the door hitting on the way out, etc. were needlessly condescending, deroagatory and lacked respect, let alone class, when a simple..."based only on the statement you provided, my opinion is XYZ....although there seems to be some additional information missing" would have promoted an informative discussion and provided actual help for your volunteer efforts. But, we may simply disagree on how to treat people...I'll teach my kids my way.

 

[cbg]

Does teaching your kids "your way" on how to behave, include teaching them to ask questions and then tell the responders that they're wrong, without explaining why? Without providing any basis for why you disagreed? Because it wasn't until you did that, that you started getting the kind of answers you object to.

If that's what you consider respect, I'll take vanilla.