Reply
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 5,496
Registered: ‎01-14-2017

@PamfromCT wrote:

@CalminHeart, You are correct about the “Employmemt at Will” law.

On the flip side, it applies also to employees, at will.

This law states you can leave your employment at any time, and for any reason.

 

This law does not mean employers are allowed to practice discrimination due to age, race, country of national origin.


@PamfromCT 

 

In places where employers can only dismiss employees for cause employees are allowed to resign their jobs.  The laws don't require employees to work.  That is called slavery.

 

And usually employees leave for cause -- they found a better job, they don't like working conditions, bossess, or co-workers, or have to quit for health or personal reasons.

 

The only thing that can interfere with an employee's ability to quit is an employment contract.  And even that does not force an employee to work for any one in particular.  Because that would be slavery.  Any consequences for an employee breaking an employment contract are financial, or maybe they have to sit out and not work for a while.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 5,496
Registered: ‎01-14-2017

@Kachina624 wrote:

@CalminHeart    Of course an employer has to be very careful not to violate any civil rights laws in excerising "employment at will".   He would be subject to complaints if he, for instance, laid off everyone over age 55 or just people of one race.  It can be a slippery slope. 


 

@Kachina624  Most employeRs are not afraid to violate the law and do it all the time.  Proving discrimination is hard, and takes a toll on the person filing the claim.  It is very easy for employers to find something they can criticize an employee for and fire them.  Never mind that they tolerate worse by many other employees.  So employers generally get away with it.

 

Employees lack the resources and information to fight back.

 

We only hear about wealthy people who have the resources to bring cases.

 

Like news anchor Gretchen Carlson who was paid $20 million by Fox News to settle her gender discrimination lawsuit in 2016.

 

In 2018,  Fox News paid $10 million to settle a number of racial and gender discrimination lawsuits involving 18 current and former employees.

 

News anchor Melissa Francis received $15 million from Fox News to settle her discrimination complaint.

 

We only hear about these cases because the amounts are significant.

 

Regular Janes and Joes can't bring cases because the lawsuits won't amount to payouts sufficient to entice lawyers to do the hard work involved.  And you can be sure the employer will bring out every little mistake the employee has ever made.  And who wants to deal with that.   Everyone makes mistakes.  Employers only tolerate mistakes in some.  That discrimination is hard to prove in Court.  Employers count on that.  And sometimes the discrimination is subconscious, but no less real.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 5,496
Registered: ‎01-14-2017

@Commoner Exec Mr Wilkes wrote:

Qurate Future Debt Repayments:

 

$214 million due 3/15/2023

$600 million  due 4/1/2024

$600 million  due 4/1/2025

 

They could easily file within the next 2 years.


 

What makes you think they can't pay or refinance or otherwise settle these debts?

Honored Contributor
Posts: 69,391
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

@NYCLatinaMe  Once a complaint has been filed, investigated and approved as valid by the EEOC, they file the lawsuit on behalf of the complainant. No need to hire an attorney. 

New Mexico☀️Land Of Enchantment
Honored Contributor
Posts: 10,154
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

@NYCLatinaMe - The company I worked for went through Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Yes, I know what it is.  Businesses use it more often than you perhaps realize.

 

I don't intend to explain it on this forum, but anyone can google it for him or herself.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,504
Registered: ‎05-22-2014

@NYCLatinaMe wrote:

@PamfromCT wrote:

@CalminHeart, You are correct about the “Employmemt at Will” law.

On the flip side, it applies also to employees, at will.

This law states you can leave your employment at any time, and for any reason.

 

This law does not mean employers are allowed to practice discrimination due to age, race, country of national origin.


@PamfromCT 

 

In places where employers can only dismiss employees for cause employees are allowed to resign their jobs.  The laws don't require employees to work.  That is called slavery.

 

And usually employees leave for cause -- they found a better job, they don't like working conditions, bossess, or co-workers, or have to quit for health or personal reasons.

 

The only thing that can interfere with an employee's ability to quit is an employment contract.  And even that does not force an employee to work for any one in particular.  Because that would be slavery.  Any consequences for an employee breaking an employment contract are financial, or maybe they have to sit out and not work for a while.


@NYCLatinaMe, The fact that any employee can resign for any reason, as part of this law, was stressed when I took university classes in employment law.  Might not make sense, but am just repeating that.  Might cover certain health care workers, without a contract, who quit and walk because of very poor treatment.  The government may have to step in and order them back to work.  Of course, this is situational and would require an emergency situation.

 

Of course, we can all take things with a grain of salt, as they say.

Just like a Philosophy professor I had who kept on insisting there is no such thing as “normal.”  Of course, I’m today’s world, maybe he was correct.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,504
Registered: ‎05-22-2014

A practice that is employed by some employers, and very large ones at that.

A person gets laid off, along with many older employees.  In order to prevent lawsuits, the company will make you a good financial offer (say a year’s salary] to sign an agreement not to sue.  Most people likely sign.

 

If only the person I know who worked a lifetime for the Federal Department of Labor could write a book!

 

Occasional Contributor
Posts: 12
Registered: ‎03-08-2023

@Kachina624 wrote:

@NYCLatinaMe  Once a complaint has been filed, investigated and approved as valid by the EEOC, they file the lawsuit on behalf of the complainant. No need to hire an attorney. 


This only assumes EEOC has jurisdiction to investigate the case.  Factors such as the size of the employer play a role in whether EEOC will investigate or whether a lawsuit is a more viable option.  The EEOC doesn't investigate every complain that comes their way because certain criteria has to be met for them to do so.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 2,814
Registered: ‎06-29-2016

It's definitely not automatic or easy.

 

File the charge with the EEOC; the initial complaint must be filed within a specific number of days after the alleged incident.

 

EEOC informs the employer and begins an investigation

 

The investigation may take 10-12 months depending upon circumstances

 

The EEOC could elect to not take the case if it determines law was not violated

 

If it does find a case  it first pursues mediation

 

If mediation fails and the EEOC believes there is a case it may then take the employer to court.

 

If the EEOC declines to sue the employee could still pursue it on their own.

 

The process could take several years.   

Trusted Contributor
Posts: 1,752
Registered: ‎10-23-2011

I listened to a podcast with Marvin Segel, son of QVC's creator Joseph Segel.  

 

He too, thinks QVC is in major trouble and headed in the wrong direction. 

 

Too many mistakes for too many years. 

 

I predict more massive cuts are coming in 12/18 months, maybe sooner.