GOING TO WAR. Fired in violation of Senate Bill 411 passing

[IncendiaryGunner]

Actually Fenway I cant seem to find that thread about the viruses, did you delete that?

I wonder why INGO would delete a thread about viruses on INGO.... maybe they are afraid someone might sue them for a payday eh?

"Your website infected my work network, the bill to clean it out is XXXX, plus worktime lost etc etc etc".

Dont say it couldnt happen.

It would fall flat on it's face, as do the vast majority of baseless lawsuits. The party that filed suit would likely incur all court costs, and get nothing.

When a lawsuit has a reasonable claim, however....

See how this works? If you don't give an employee a reasonable cause for suit - the vast majority of the time they go nowhere.

 

[mrjarrell]

Yeah, where DID that thread go?

Fenway's admin guru deleted all the threads. Said it had something to do with Google indexing.

 

[eldirector]

Fenway's admin guru deleted all the threads. Said it had something to do with Google indexing.

Ah, thanks. Wonder if we ever found the offending ad?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Ah, thanks. Wonder if we ever found the offending ad?

Something about vitamink's avatar becoming self aware...

 

[mrjarrell]

Ah, thanks. Wonder if we ever found the offending ad?

No word on that. Maybe Fenway or the mods will start a thread if/when they figure it out, and let us know.

 

[jeremy]

Sigh......

 

[dom1104]

Something about vitamink's avatar becoming self aware...

Now THAT is comedy gold.

bravo sir.

 

[the1kidd03]

It would fall flat on it's face, as do the vast majority of baseless lawsuits.

IDK about that. If one can win a suit for spilling coffee on themselves, I tend to think anything is possible with a creative enough attorney, LOL.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Please tell me you're not using the McDonald's coffee lady lawsuit in a dismissive manner.

 

[the1kidd03]

Please tell me you're not using the McDonald's coffee lady lawsuit in a dismissive manner.

Last I checked, I was free to make whatever jokes I wanted...

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Please tell me you're not using the McDonald's coffee lady lawsuit in a dismissive manner.

Because the people who do use this case in a dismissive manner have zero idea about what that particular lawsuit was about. Hint folks: It wasn't about simply spilling hot coffee on one's self.

-J-

 

[the1kidd03]

Because the people who do use this case in a dismissive manner have zero idea about what that particular lawsuit was about. Hint folks: It wasn't about simply spilling hot coffee on one's self.

-J-

Indeed. Part of why I had to do an extensive case study on it.

Sense of humor is lost today apparently

 

[downzero]

Because the people who do use this case in a dismissive manner have zero idea about what that particular lawsuit was about. Hint folks: It wasn't about simply spilling hot coffee on one's self.

-J-

Yep. The same is true of the common believe on the state of tort litigation in America.

 

[the1kidd03]

Yep. The same is true of the common believe on the state of tort litigation in America.

Ok, NOW you're going beyond my scope Not a law student, LOL.

 

[SaintsNSinners]

I do not believe that no. I believe he got fired. I believe he wants a payday.

Thats it.

I dont like folks who want a payday because they got fired.

Been there, done that, paid the lawyers, didnt get the coffee cup.

Your right its about a payday was friday and I didnt get paid. Should have been paid but was not. Now I am behind on a rent bill.

So Yes Part of the Lawsuit is about a payday. the Part about Illegal witholding of Wages.

The rest of the lawsuit is about righting a wrong. In this case blatant disregard of the law. Its about changing midesets and business practices. Some business's have said they dont care and wont change for this law unless they are forced.

There is a point somewhere of tranquility between firearms owners and employers. This is a common ground of preservation and self defense that we must find. Business Owners have the right to protect their employees and businesses, but the employee's also have the right to self defense and preservation of life to and from work.

These laws were an attempt to bridge those common grounds into an Im Ok you're OK situation. Firearms owners did not feel defenseless in their travels to and from work, Business owners were still allowed to keep firearms out of the physical workplace; and were covered from liability as well specifically.

Some business owners have embraced the concept and others through ignorance and/or willful disregard have refused to adapt to the new laws.

This lawsuit is hopefully the last building block in the quest for tranquility amongst employers and firearm owning employee's. Its time to open the eyes and educate those left holding out. I am ok and they will be too.

 

[Roadie]

I do not believe that no. I believe he got fired. I believe he wants a payday.

Thats it.

I dont like folks who want a payday because they got fired.

Been there, done that, paid the lawyers, didnt get the coffee cup.

So you disagree with the law as it is written?

 

[thebishopp]

I do not believe that no. I believe he got fired. I believe he wants a payday.

Thats it.

I dont like folks who want a payday because they got fired.

Been there, done that, paid the lawyers, didnt get the coffee cup.

- Proving the point once again that "misery loves company".

 

[singlestacksig]

Star news has the story..
http://www.indystar.com/article/201...his-car?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com

seems the OP had a ND first ??

 

[Amattern]

Your right its about a payday was friday and I didnt get paid. Should have been paid but was not. Now I am behind on a rent bill.

So Yes Part of the Lawsuit is about a payday. the Part about Illegal witholding of Wages.

The rest of the lawsuit is about righting a wrong. In this case blatant disregard of the law. Its about changing midesets and business practices. Some business's have said they dont care and wont change for this law unless they are forced.

There is a point somewhere of tranquility between firearms owners and employers. This is a common ground of preservation and self defense that we must find. Business Owners have the right to protect their employees and businesses, but the employee's also have the right to self defense and preservation of life to and from work.

These laws were an attempt to bridge those common grounds into an Im Ok you're OK situation. Firearms owners did not feel defenseless in their travels to and from work, Business owners were still allowed to keep firearms out of the physical workplace; and were covered from liability as well specifically.

Some business owners have embraced the concept and others through ignorance and/or willful disregard have refused to adapt to the new laws.

This lawsuit is hopefully the last building block in the quest for tranquility amongst employers and firearm owning employee's. Its time to open the eyes and educate those left holding out. I am ok and they will be too.

Have you returned all their property such as uniforms, badges, anything else they gave you while working for them? I know alot of companies hold your paycheck until such items are turned in.

 

[mkbar80]

Let me preface this by saying I hope Mr. Relford brings this case to a successful outcome, but if the Indystar story is accurate I have some IANAL questions about the application of current satutes.

By having the rifle 'out' of the vehicle to show another person and then negligently disharging the weapon....would the employer not be placed in a position of liability? It seems that at the point of the ND he has become a safety liability to those around him. How much protection from statute would the OP still have after this??

From what I have gathered, the employer is also guilty of poorly handling this issue. If you were going to fire him for the ND, then do it right then. It would also seem prudent to pay a person for all days worked regardless of grounds for termination.

What seemed pretty clear cut, gets a lot murkier to me, if the ND story is accurate. I have a lot more questions given that article....but it is the RedStar