No reason given at will termination

[Taxing Matters]

And it makes no different the owner of the property didn't make the policy but the GM did because has a bias against them just because they are homeless. This is not a long standing policy and has only been around for a few months now.

It makes no difference. It doesn't have to be a long standing policy. It doesn't have to be decided by the property owner. Your boss told you to do something that was legal — kick out people based on a characteristic that is not protected by law. You didn't do it, so you got fired. That's a legal termination.

Also, if :bums" were not allowed on the property one would have to put signs at the entrances stating such a policy same as the no trespassing .

No, no sign is needed either. A sign for "no trespassing" is only be needed if the property owner or person in possession is going to ask the police to cite violators for criminal trespass. No sign is needed to simply kick people off the property.

 

[Jasoli12]

It makes no difference. It doesn't have to be a long standing policy. It doesn't have to be decided by the property owner. Your boss told you to do something that was legal — kick out people based on a characteristic that is not protected by law. You didn't do it, so you got fired. That's a legal termination.



No, no sign is needed either. A sign for "no trespassing" is only be needed if the property owner or person in possession is going to ask the police to cite violators for criminal trespass. No sign is needed to simply kick people off the property.

Alright.... so how would it go if they said no one over the age of 65 is allowed on the property. Or no people with tattoos or piercings... is that all okay too?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Alright.... so how would it go if they said no one over the age of 65 is allowed on the property. Or no people with tattoos or piercings... is that all okay too?

The first would be age discrimination which is illegal. No tattoos or piercings would be completely legal.

But in either case or in your case even if the rule you refused to enforce were illegal you refusal to enforce it and your subsequent termination would not amount to wrongful termination.

 

[Jasoli12]

The first would be age discrimination which is illegal. No tattoos or piercings would be completely legal.

But in either case or in your case even if the rule you refused to enforce were illegal you refusal to enforce it and your subsequent termination would not amount to wrongful termination.

Well, I had stated I was done with this matter before you continued on with it.... I was simply asking IF it was in the original post. Dont know why I have to get brow he about it.... that was just a side though. My may and only concern her is the fact my son is being kept away from me without just cause. And excuses she comes up with are both weak and have no proof, especially anything beyond the shadow of a dout!

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Well, I had stated I was done with this matter before you continued on with it.... I was simply asking IF it was in the original post. Dont know why I have to get brow he about it.... that was just a side though. My may and only concern her is the fact my son is being kept away from me without just cause. And excuses she comes up with are both weak and have no proof, especially anything beyond the shadow of a dout!

The subject of this thread is No reason given at will termination
I'm well aware of your other threads. If you are no longer interested in this thread stop posting to it.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Alright.... so how would it go if they said no one over the age of 65 is allowed on the property.

That would violate Oregon law, since under Oregon law a business is prohibited from discriminating against adult customers based on their age. It would not violate federal law, as federal law does not prohibit businesses from discriminating based on age.

Or no people with tattoos or piercings... is that all okay too?

That would be legal, since neither federal nor Oregon law prohibits discrimination by businesses based on tattoos or piercings. Or what kind of clothes the customer wears, either. Look again at the lists of protected characteristics under federal and Oregon law that I posted earlier in the thread. Any characteristic NOT on those lists is fair game for a business to use as a basis for refusing service. It may seem unfair and it may be stupid for a business to discriminate against someone based on tattoos or what kind of clothes they wear, but it would be perfectly legal for the business to do.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Well, I had stated I was done with this matter before you continued on with it.... I was simply asking IF it was in the original post. Dont know why I have to get brow he about it.... that was just a side though. My may and only concern her is the fact my son is being kept away from me without just cause. And excuses she comes up with are both weak and have no proof, especially anything beyond the shadow of a dout!

Your marital troubles have nothing to do with your employment problems.

If your current job is so much better, then perhaps your termination from the previous job was a blessing in disguise.