Young And The Restless Discussion Group

Topic: Effective dismissal

Newman is better off dismissing her rather than setting themselves up for a lawsuit.

Watching the scene I couldn't help but think it's all a set-up.  The way Nick and Michael kept looking at each other was like some kind of conspiracy.  The fact that Nick even confronted Adam with his suspicion that Adam did it makes me even more sure it was a set-up.

I think the employee was in on it and she was sent to the other office just so she wouldn't be around where Adam is (and so it would look to Adam like Nick and Mikey believed she was guilty).

I'm convinced they know it was Adam and are just biding their time til they can prove it.

Maybe that's the plot point.  IOW, Nick's already made one lousy decision by settling the SEC investigation based on Michael's self-serving, conflict-of-interest advice to help his mother out - and now our Box of Rocks takes this inappropriate action, again, with Michael standing right there.   Perhaps these two are headed for a fall.  

Well, I'm an HR Mgr and apparently the writers have never heard of the Whistleblower Protection Act, which protects employees from any negative action and/or retaliation for making complaints or participating as a witness in an investigation.

And yes, transferring someone is completed retaliation.

So IRL, that employee could sue Newman big time!

Replies: (list all replies)

Oops - that should have said, ''CONSIDERED retaliation''!.........DebS

---

Posted by: SoapEye
Date posted: Wed Nov 11 20:22:23 2009
Message:
Victor did the same thing with Estella. Telling her that she was no longer needed at the ranch..but he was moving her to Newman. She isn't property.

---

Posted by: guy
Date posted: Wed Nov 11 19:46:35 2009
Message:
That's what I was thinking. That whole scene was strange. I was like, "Why not just fire her?"
Maybe they think firing her would open them up for a lawsuit, but as you pointed out, she could sue them anyway.

---

Posted by: Rosebud1
Date posted: Wed Nov 11 19:41:15 2009
Message:
Moving someone from one branch of the business to another isn't grounds for suing anyone.  I thought her response was ridiculous--especially in this economic climate!  She COULD have been left with no job, not moved to a branch office.  Just like people who have been 'asked' (IRL) to take fulough (sp) days--they COULD have no job to come back to & the business could close up shop.  That IS a realistic alternative.

Replies: (list all replies)

Good point, BUT, it is illegal to demote an employee or make his or her working conditions so bad that they are forces to quit. That is called Constructive Discharge, and it is VERY illegal. They have taken the first step towards setting that employee up for that. They would have been better off firing her outright.

Guy is right. Telling someone to transfer cities while accusing them of reporting to the SEC, looks punitive.. It might be seen as a hardship if she owns a house and has kids in school etc. The employer appears to be forcing her out of the company without actually proving or formally stating she did anything wrong. ... Cretos

If they had been paying her enough and she had the money to hire a lawyer, I would to prove I wasn't guilty of something I didn't do. I hate the way Nick talks to Adam but hate Adam too in that he has no morals. Using this woman in the way he has. Disgusting man and can't stand Nick either --you can throw Phyl in there too.- Paula

Cretos and guy are right, Rosebud. REgardless of the current economy, it is illegal to retaliate against an employee for making a complaint to the SEC. Adn yes, transferring someone anywhere can be considered retaliation, especially if it invovlves relocation (which inconveniences the employee's life), or demotion (including cut in pay and even status in the company). In addition should they further make her job miserable, they could be on the hook for constructive discharge. Newman would be screwed if this were real life. And trust me, I know. I deal w/ employment law 40+ hours//week.........DebS

And the employee is free to quit if it is such a problem to relocate. No one is tying her up & forcing her to take the job! Wouldn't they have to prove that she WAS the one who made the report, not just suspected, to be charged w/retaliation (sp)?! Companies transfer employees all the time to far flung offices w/o it being considered illegal or harassment. Some employees may not like it, but many suck it up & go along to further their careers. Personally, I would have quit if I was part of that meeting & I had been a trusted member of the company's staff for yrs. I certainly would have had the self-respect to do something more than stomp out of the room & cry about it. eom

Quitting a job where you've been for years ISN'T such an easy decision as you make it sound RB, especially in this economy, even if your pride is on the line. If the woman is upset and beside herself, maybe it's because she's being hit with this charge out of left field, has no idea who used her cell and set her up and no way to defend herself. On top of that, she's being told she needs to relocate NOW. Not such an easy thing to swallow for anyone.

I don't know about you, RB, but if I were accused of something that I didn't do and then forced to relocate as a result, I'd be pretty upset too. And knowing employment law as I do, while I'm ''free to quit'' (not so easy in this economy, by the way), you can bet I'd sue their arses off! Believe me, I'm all for employer rights, but I draw the line when employers blatantly abuse employees and their rights. And so do most people, by the way. Oh, and as far as proving that she made the complaint in order to prove relaliation - it doesn't work that way - in this case, the burden of proof would be on the EMPLOYER, to show that they did not retaliate against her. And let's not even get into the fact that courts tend to side w/ the employee against the employer. So the employer would have to have a REALLY good case to show that they did not retaliate against her. And given my experience, Newman just does not. It's just the way it is........DebS

If she knew her rights & was SO offended, then she should have been on her phone immediately, calling her union rep. &/or her attorney. Not whining & running off looking like some shrill, hysterical victim. By what you are saying, ABC should be sued for what they are doing w/AMC in 'forcing' actors to relocate to LA to keep their jobs & take huge pay cuts. eom

It's apples and oranges. If a company moves its operations, it has every right to require the employees to move with it or leave the company. That is completely different from moving a single employee in retaliation for something the company suspects they did. Whether the employee was or was not the one who ratted to the SEC, either way NE is still wrong to move her based on that allegation. ~i&b

Rosebud, what world do you live in? I mean that as an honest question. We know you know EVERYTHING about celebrities and Hollywood, but it appears you know NOTHING about how the real world works. Transferring that employee to another site as punishment is ILLEGAL. I-L-L-E-G-A-L. It is a lot more complicated than you think it is. You can't say she should just quit. She is being punished for something she didn't do. If it were a regular transfer, yes, you would be correct. But it isn't a regular transfer. It is a PUNISHMENT. What is it about that that you don't get?

I have worked for companies that have transferred employees to other campuses & branch offices without breaking the law. They've had employees change jobs & pay, but they weren't automatically doing something illegal! If that was SO illegal, then why isn't ABC in trouble for relocating to LA? Why isn't Boeing in trouble for breaking a union & moving part of their production line out of Washington state? What about relocating their Corp. offices to Chicago & insisting that employees either go w/them, take a different job or simply leave?! What about those companies that 'offer' employees the 'choice' of early retirement or cuts in pay & work?! Look, the chick wasn't being sent to Siberia, she was being sent to a branch office in another state. It is a free country, she could refuse to do it & quit if she found it SO objectionable. The friend of a friend, who I worked w/briefly in an office, took a job in the administrative offices & was moved around the company like crazy--to their branch offices & other divisions, the company was never treated as criminals for that. Lots of people in the company moved around. Many of them were recommended by superiors for those jobs. There was nothing mentioned by unions of anyone doing anything illegal. eom

Rosebud, you STILL don't get it. She was TARGETED. Get it? TARGETED!! If they had told her they needed her to transfer to Milwaukee out of the blue, that would have been fine. BUT they are TARGETING her and making it clear that that is a PUNISHMENT. And stop bringing up ABC. They are moving the entire show to Los Angeles. They are not TARGETING one employee to SHIP to LA. No offense, but I find it hard to believe you've worked at big companies before.

Rosebud - are you SERIOUSLY implying that you can't see the difference between transferring an employee because of business reasons (and even then the employee usually has a choice), and transferring them out of retaliation for making a complaint? If you can't see the difference, then I'm not wasting my time trying to help you understand. What Newman did was ILLEGAL - period - ok? PERIOD - Regardless of what you believe..........DebS

---

---