Employers pay for acting irresponsibly?

[EBSB52 0]

Here's the deal, I sued a former employer and it finally went to trial yesterday. I sued for lost wages via having to quit under duress. The 3 reasons that led me to quitting under duress are:

1) Employer had an employee that threatened to kill another employee, I brought this up in a meeting, the offending employee admitted this and then wanted to "take me to the parking lot." The employer wanted to retain offending employee but was required to fire him for his acts; employer rehired him after I quit. I asserted that there was extreme bias against me, harrassment due to me objecting to his return, which was justified by his rehiring after I quit.

2) Employer paid me with 4 out of 10 NSF checks. Only 1 went through my bank account that bounced, the rest went through their bank and I was required to return to the bank several times to see if the money was ever deposited until I could cash it. According the Arizona Administrative Codes, I can quit under good cause for the above actions.

3) This prompted me to immediately quit: I'm an aircraft mechanic IA, which means I can return to service aircraft after major repair or alteration, as well as perform an annual inspection. My boss, who let his IA expire, severly leaned on me to sign off that annual when I did not actually inspect it. I proved he did so by him saying, "Fine, I won't sign off anything of yours either." This is a violation that could render an airman's license revoked. I immediately quit after this.

I was suing for 5 weeks wages, the time it took me to secure employment elsewhere.

I won't tell you the outcome until after a few responses. If you vote, give rationale as to how you came to that conclusion.

Thx

[kallend 2,150]

Small businessmen are a protected class that need all the help they can get from the government in dealing with whiny employees and whistleblowers. YOU should pay.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jimbarry 0]

Hope you get legal fees out of it too. Otherwise bye-bye five weeks wages, even if you did win.

In all candor though, what was your employer's side of the argument?

>give rationale as to how you came to that conclusion

My rationale for agreeing with you comes solely from hearing only your side of the story.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Hope you get legal fees out of it too. Otherwise bye-bye five weeks wages, even if you did win.

In all candor though, what was your employer's side of the argument?

>give rationale as to how you came to that conclusion

My rationale for agreeing with you comes solely from hearing only your side of the story.

Arguments from other side:

1) Employer had an employee that threatened to kill another employee, I brought this up in a meeting, the offending employee admitted this and then wanted to "take me to the parking lot." The employer wanted to retain offending employee but was required to fire him for his acts; employer rehired him after I quit. I asserted that there was extreme bias against me, harrassment due to me objecting to his return, which was justified by his rehiring after I quit.

Even though myself and the agressive employee didn't get along well and the agressive employee and the person whom he threatened to kill didn't get along - were in no way friends - the argument from the employer was that he admitted he heard the agressive employee admit he made the threat and the employer directly heard the agressive employee ask to take me to the parking lot, the employer claimed it was all a joke. I asked the employer if it's ever ok to threaten to kill or beat up other employees, especially if the employees in question don't get along well, and he replied by saying it is ok as long as it's a joke. The employer continued by saying that nothing had happened so there ws no real threat. (this is ends justify the means logic)

The employer alos said it was a couple months after I quit that they hired the guy back. I had no way of impeaching or affirming that - not that it matters.

2) Employer paid me with 4 out of 10 NSF checks. Only 1 went through my bank account that bounced, the rest went through their bank and I was required to return to the bank several times to see if the money was ever deposited until I could cash it. According the Arizona Administrative Codes, I can quit under good cause for the above actions.

The employer said, upon my cross examination, that it is not a check that is NSF if you merely go to their bank to cash it and the clerk tells you there are insufficient funds to pay out on it. He said the only type of check that is really NSF is one that goes through your account and bounces. With that, he said that inly 1 check went through my account, so only 1 check bounced.

3) This prompted me to immediately quit: I'm an aircraft mechanic IA, which means I can return to service aircraft after major repair or alteration, as well as perform an annual inspection. My boss, who let his IA expire, severly leaned on me to sign off that annual when I did not actually inspect it. I proved he did so by him saying, "Fine, I won't sign off anything of yours either." This is a violation that could render an airman's license revoked. I immediately quit after this.

The director of maintenance was the defendant here. He pretty much acknowledged my claims, but said that he didn't actually ask me to illegally sign off the inspections in so many words, so he is responsible for nothing. I asserted that his position in the company over me in conjunction with his demeanor and threatening not to sign off my work illustartes he did want me to sign off the inspection, which would have been illegal. He maintained he didn't actually ask me to sign it off in those words, so he did nothing wrong.


To further expound, I sued 4 people (corporations are considered people for this context)

1. Corporation
2. President
3. Vice president
4. Director of Maintenance

They could be civilly exonerated, individually found responsible, or joint and severally be found responsible.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Arguments from other side: . . .

You're kind of missing the point. Your view is tainted, and that's to be expected and even OK. I think what was meant was "without hearing the other side of the story from the other side . . . ."

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[jimbarry 0]

I'm not an attorney, but if I was a juror in this case, I'd have to say that your side seems reasonable and logical, and their side, while might be technically correct, is full of people wiggling around after the fact.

Given everything you said, if you were as candid as you can be about what the other side might have said, I'd be far more likely to side with you on this one. Your story is far more believable. Going after only five weeks pay, you have far less reason to lie than they do.

When in doubt, I've got to go with the threat possibly being real and not kidding, and the intent to sign off as being strong even without actual words to that effect.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Arguments from other side: . . .

You're kind of missing the point. Your view is tainted, and that's to be expected and even OK. I think what was meant was "without hearing the other side of the story from the other side . . . ."

-
Jim

I'm not missing any point, I am expressing the objective facts from both sides as far as the substance of each side's argument goes. I used to brief cases in a very limited way for several classes.

1. Facts
2. Issues
3. Ruling
4. Rationale

There are several different versions of the above, which is how to separate the elements of a case, but that sums it up. I gave the facts and touched on te issues. Again, I posted an objective summary of the arguments from both sides - it was a very simple case is regard to facts from both sides.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

I'm not an attorney, but if I was a juror in this case, I'd have to say that your side seems reasonable and logical, and their side, while might be technically correct, is full of people wiggling around after the fact.

Given everything you said, if you were as candid as you can be about what the other side might have said, I'd be far more likely to side with you on this one. Your story is far more believable. Going after only five weeks pay, you have far less reason to lie than they do.

When in doubt, I've got to go with the threat possibly being real and not kidding, and the intent to sign off as being strong even without actual words to that effect.

Surprisingly enough both sides were pretty much honest. Of course a 56 page trascript of a DES hearing I submitted into evidence helped.

I gave the entirety of both sides of what was said in court. WHat I didn't include were things like me illustrating their answer had falicies in it. In their answer they claimed there was nothing about a threat to kill my coworker or take me to the parking lot, but that was debunked in court, the other side wouldn't concede.

As far as my sie beiong believable or theirs, there weren't a lot of controvertable issues. There were several sub-issues about small details, but they openly admitted the threats and the checks, but thought a check that didn't clear through their own bank wasn't a bouncer, and 2 co-workers trhat don't get along, according to them, and a threat is dropped is a joking matter. So the actual facts weren't really in dispute, just that they thought it was no biggie and not grounds for me quitting under duress.

When in doubt, I've got to go with the threat possibly being real and not kidding,...

If they ever have a shooting at their workplace they are in deep shit.

... and the intent to sign off as being strong even without actual words to that effect.

Sociologists say that comunication is 92% nonverbal, so if you count verbal communication taht is highly suggestive I don't think you need a direct verbatim request to qualify. I can say volumes with a single look, and I can veil threats by talking around just as anyone can. I could say, "Go ahead and don't sign off that annual and see what happens." I really haven't said I would do anything, I said to see what happens. I think we can all read between the lines.

Thanks for the reply, I will post the results for anyone that cares sometime tomorrow.

[miked10270 0]

As Jimbo says...

What I'm hearing is ONE side of the story. Giving your version of the defendants' responses really doesn't constitute the other side of the story.

I must admit that I suspect the reason for your posting this is that you lost!?

If you did in fact lose, then while you may not feel that is justice, it IS law. As I've said before on far too many occasions: "Justice is something you get in the next life. In this life you have to settle for the law."



Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

As Jimbo says...

What I'm hearing is ONE side of the story. Giving your version of the defendants' responses really doesn't constitute the other side of the story.

I must admit that I suspect the reason for your posting this is that you lost!?

If you did in fact lose, then while you may not feel that is justice, it IS law. As I've said before on far too many occasions: "Justice is something you get in the next life. In this life you have to settle for the law."



Mike.

Oh brother. I have no motive to twist objective facts. I just want to see the feeling of other people on the issue.

I must admit that I suspect the reason for your posting this is that you lost!?


Maybe I'm whining, maybe I'm bragging - I just want an opinon from other people...geez.

I'll wait to comment on the last remark until after I get a few more replies. If you would, take the facts as I report them and disect them. I didn't assert emotion or misconstrue anything, I just want to see what opinion the club has with the facts as presented.

LIke I just wrote, the facts were primarily uncontroverted in court. There were issues like, did I quit on May 13th, 2003 or May 14th? Basically meaningless, biut they were trying to establish taht I didn't give them time to fix the last problem. The judge moved on becuase he cared not about that mini issue.

The core of the facts of the case were uncontroverted by both sides, so all that is left is deciding if the above facts constitute a good cause quit.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Stupid employer. I'd have given you 4 weeks severence pay after I had you sign an agreement that the termination was mutually agreeable and that you wouldn't sue for any reason. Done deal. Life goes on......

Sounds like a real butt cheeto company, be glad you are done with them. It sounds like they are having financial problems.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Stupid employer. I'd have given you 4 weeks severence pay after I had you sign an agreement that the termination was mutually agreeable and that you wouldn't sue for any reason. Done deal. Life goes on......

Sounds like a real butt cheeto company, be glad you are done with them. It sounds like they are having financial problems.

Good intuition. The president has a 58k tax lein from Ohio, a 40k fed tax lein just recintly acquired, and a 10k+ state tax lein as I recall. They have been sued to the end of time by many people, current suits pending. They are being sued for being 6 months in arrears by the owner of their hangar too. These guys have a history of discredibility and bouncing checks. I will post sites to this tomorrow.

Thanks for the reply.
Oh, BTW, this is the same general aviation place that trained Hani Hanjour, WTC terrorist. The company was resold to the former owner's frinds tho, so differnt management.