windywave wrote:
Danno wrote:
windywave wrote:
Danno wrote:
windywave wrote:
Danno wrote:
windywave wrote:
Was it vulgar? Was it a violation of the policy? Did it have the potential to negatively impact the firm? Not seeing the issue still.Yes and yes. And, if you don't see the issue in light of the fact that another employee who violated the policy was NOT fired, then you're not trying hard enough.
Again, immaterial.
Nah. It's really not.
It sure is. An at will employee can be terminated at any point. Maybe the other employee's action didn't have the potential to destroy the company. It's immaterial
There are all kinds of legal exceptions to at will employment. According to all the information presented about this case, she wasn't fired for anything other than the fact that she violated the social media policy. If her story is correct, so did her male co-worker; yet he was given the opportunity to retract his post rather than get fired. She was not. There may very well be circumstances that adequately explain the difference, but on its face, the disparity in treatment is most certainly relevant and material.
Yeah the difference is the content of the post. This isn't hard to comprehend
Yeah, that's not going to be a winner.
''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''
—Lars-Erik Nelson