Recent content by mightyalwayz

I get your assessment of my over-investment in this case. Maybe it's such because I'm examining it through the eyes of a juror. Who knows. I am reading other cases; again, this one piqued my interest over the others. However, based on your further assessment of my interactions on here, perhaps...

Probationary periods for new employees are typically 90 days. In the employer’s case, if they were genuinely giving the employee an “opportunity to improve his performance” it would’ve been reasonable to allow at least 30 days before taking action against him. However, it appears from the...

. *Edit* I think the retaliation occurred instantly when the next-level supervisor dismissed the employee, as it can be construed as interfering (as I previously inferred) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b).

Has been. #telling I don't want to stoke the flames any further, I just want to get back to unpacking this case, if I can.

How about a bit more details then: The employee attempted (operative word) to complain to the next-level supervisor (this course of action meeting the requirements of their internal EEO policy), and was abruptly dismissed while in the commission of doing so. The next-level supervisor appeared...

If you're stating that my admission of being "Employee X" lies in the line "I, in this instance, have an advantage of familiarity (apparently so much that the employee and I are one in the same)" then I probably should've put on my sarcasm filter, as I was addressing your no-so-nuanced...

By the employer's own admission, they were giving the employee an opportunity to improve his performance. However, and inexplicitly, they move to discipline him in the time shortly after his complaint. Their chronology of events is almost similary to Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries , (7th...

In Sullivan v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 170 F.3d 1056, 1058 (11th Cir. 1999) the court found that the jury’s finding against employee on sexual harassment claim did not preclude it from finding for employee on his retaliation claim and rejected employer’s argument that dismissal of harassment...

I suppose the reason we're apparently butting heads is not for my lack of intellectual curiosity, but for our inability to reach a consensus on the matter. And part of the reason for that is, by your own admission, your unfamiliarity with the case. I, in this instance, have an advantage of...

Only if you're willing to look past precedent and face the prospect of the case being remanded back to your docket on appeal. Austin v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., 2:16-CV-06509-TR (Aug. 30). Summary judgment was granted for the defendant as to the sexual harassment claim but denied as to the...

Firstly, let's note for the record that "person X" is not me. I am, however, admittedly more vested in this case than others I've reviewed based on what I've read in the docket. I don't know why; maybe I don't like employers dissuading the "little man" to take action with abandon. Now that we...

You are absolutely correct: "An Employer can terminate any at will employee without notice, justification, explanation, or cause." However, not only are there documented exceptions to the at-will doctrine, but we are talking about a specific instance where the employee has made claim pursuant to...

Will do. Also worth mentioning, the employee did, in fact, start with the EEOC. However (and I'm assuming it was probably in part due to his pro se status at the time) they dismissed his claim and issued him his right to sue notice. *Edit* In the EEOC claim, he also led with the race...

The next-level supervisor.

I examined the entire case file so I'm happy to tell you, among other things, what evidence has been presented. The employer submitted several disciplinary write-ups and two declarations: one from both the immediate and next-level supervisor. The write-ups – stemming from the immediate...