What else can be done

[Troubledworker]

Jurisdiction

Florida

One of my coworkers was terminated for fighting off his boss after being Attacked. There was a security camera that recorded the event. The worker was arrested and fired without his employer viewing the video. The worker was acquitted at trial after the video and other evidence was viewed. The 5 min video is on youtube under the title Attacked at work in Golden Beach Florida. Take a look at the video and see what you think. It appears to me that the corporation covered up a workplace violation of the manager and only punished the worker. The Federal court dismissed the worker retaliation lawsuit at summary judgement. Let me know what you think. Does a worker have the right to justice?

 

[cbg]

It seems to me that you don't have any idea what happened to the manager; you only know that he was not fired. There could have been any number of legal reasons for the difference in treatment and neither you nor your friend has any idea what transpired behind the scenes. If your question is EITHER "is the employer obligated to fire the manager" OR "does the employer now have to re-hire the fired employee" the answer to both is no.

 

[army judge]

Hmmmmm

 

[army judge]

Does a worker have the right to justice?

Every human being in this country, citizen, visitor, documented guest worker, illegal/undocumented person(s), resident alien all enjoy EQUAL treatment under our constitution, federal law, state law, even local law.

 

[adjusterjack]

Every human being in this country, citizen, visitor, documented guest worker, illegal/undocumented person(s), resident alien all enjoy EQUAL treatment under our constitution, federal law, state law, even local law.

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is."
Yogi Berra

Meaning that the reality is that there are many human beings in this country that don't enjoy equal treatment under our laws.

 

[cbg]

I have now watched the video. It is far from clear that there even was an assault, let alone which of the two unidentifiable figures was the aggressor. I am not at all surprised that the worker was acquitted on the basis of the video. As to the firing, I can only assume that there was something we are not privy to (such as the manager being the first to report the incident) that led the employer to believe it was warranted.

However, as unfair as it might have been to fire him, it was not an illegal firing and I'm unaware of any laws (particularly in an employer-friendly state like Florida) that offer him what you would term "justice" in this particular setting. It's a shame it happened to him and I'm not saying it was right, but it is what it is. Since no laws were broken, no protected employment rights violated, and a court found in his favor regarding the arrest, his best option is to file for unemployment and try to move on. My prior post still stands; he has no idea what got said to the manager, what warnings were issued or what was put in the manager's personnel file. That he was not fired is not evidence that no action was taken.

 

[zddoodah]

The worker was arrested and fired without his employer viewing the video.

Earlier in your post, you wrote that this was a co-worker of yours. Now you're referring to the employer as "his employer." Intentional? Anyway, how do you know that the employer didn't view the footage?

It appears to me that the corporation covered up a workplace violation of the manager and only punished the worker.

Is "the corporation" the same thing as the employer? How did the corporation "cover[] up" anything?

The Federal court dismissed the worker retaliation lawsuit at summary judgement.

That means that the fired employee had insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in his favor on a cause of action for retaliation.

Let me know what you think.

One cannot comment intelligently about the summary judgment ruling without reading the court's ruling and the briefs in support of and opposition to the motion and all evidence submitted by the parties. Nor can one comment intelligently on the disparate treatment of the worker and the supervisor without all relevant facts.

P.S. Nothing came up when I searched for the video.

 

[justblue]

Earlier in your post, you wrote that this was a co-worker of yours. Now you're referring to the employer as "his employer." Intentional? Anyway, how do you know that the employer didn't view the footage?



Is "the corporation" the same thing as the employer? How did the corporation "cover[] up" anything?



That means that the fired employee had insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in his favor on a cause of action for retaliation.



One cannot comment intelligently about the summary judgment ruling without reading the court's ruling and the briefs in support of and opposition to the motion and all evidence submitted by the parties. Nor can one comment intelligently on the disparate treatment of the worker and the supervisor without all relevant facts.

P.S. Nothing came up when I searched for the video.

Army Judge posted the video in post 3.

 

[Redemptionman]

Every human being in this country, citizen, visitor, documented guest worker, illegal/undocumented person(s), resident alien all enjoy EQUAL treatment under our constitution, federal law, state law, even local law.

You might have to help me understand this one, where in our constitution as written does it provide illegals/ undocumented persons or resident aliens in our country illegally the right to vote and equal treatment under the law? I mean I read the part about all citizens born or naturalized via a legal path into the United States but nowhere did say anything about invaders or illegals.

 

[adjusterjack]

My guess is that, at many points in the last 200 plus years, the US Supreme Court has seen fit to broadly extend those protections.

 

[Redemptionman]

My guess is that, at many points in the last 200 plus years, the US Supreme Court has seen fit to broadly extend those protections.

I see, 200 years the average life expectancy of democracies and empires.

 

[Tax Counsel]

You might have to help me understand this one, where in our constitution as written does it provide illegals/ undocumented persons or resident aliens in our country illegally the right to vote and equal treatment under the law?

Persons who are not citizens of the U.S. don't have a constitutional right to vote, but nothing in the Constitution prevents the government from extending that right to them. As for equal treatment, everyone present in the United States is entitled to equal treatment under the law. That does not mean that the law must give everyone the same rights/benefits. But when applying the law, everyone must be treated the same. Thus, as one example, a black undocumented alien and a white undocumented alien have the right to be treated the same under the immigration laws. They do not have, however, all the same rights citizens do.

 

[Redemptionman]

Persons who are not citizens of the U.S. don't have a constitutional right to vote, but nothing in the Constitution prevents the government from extending that right to them. As for equal treatment, everyone present in the United States is entitled to equal treatment under the law. That does not mean that the law must give everyone the same rights/benefits. But when applying the law, everyone must be treated the same. Thus, as one example, a black undocumented alien and a white undocumented alien have the right to be treated the same under the immigration laws. They do not have, however, all the same rights citizens do.

site reference please, where does it say that? It states in the constitution that born or nationalized citizens should be recognized but nothing about illegals or nonresidents in our country just that they should be treated equal. Nothing in the constitution extends our rights to non citizens or non nationalized residents of this country. I know states draw their own conclusions as to voting and rights to issue IDs but nothing in our constitution provides that.

Hussein O'Bama called himself a constitutional attorney/ scholar but in actuality Hussein O'Bama was neither. However, he did find the time to go to Castro's funeral, and remove the bust of Winston Churchill from the White House were it had been for what 50 plus years.

 

[adjusterjack]

I smell an off topic political argument coming. This is not the place for it.

Try City-Data where hundreds of posters love this stuff.

Thread locked.