sanitation@lemmy.radio to me_irl@lemmy.world · 1 day agoMe_irllemmy.radioimagemessage-square62linkfedilinkarrow-up1660arrow-down13
arrow-up1657arrow-down1imageMe_irllemmy.radiosanitation@lemmy.radio to me_irl@lemmy.world · 1 day agomessage-square62linkfedilink
minus-squareCrescent@fedinsfw.applinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9arrow-down1·1 day agoOver here it’s not “illegal”, they just fire you with a different reason if you even as much as mention what you earn to a coworker.
minus-squareJcbAzPx@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·1 day agoThey should sue. Even at will doesn’t let you fire for illegal reasons and that’s an illegal reason. Employment attorneys take cases on contingency and live for these sort of slam dunk, easy win cases.
minus-squaredream_weasel@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up2·10 hours agoYou would still have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your firing was due to the salary discussion and not something else. It’s like when a cop wants to pull you over: if they follow you long enough you’ll make enough of a mistake for the pretense.
minus-squareJcbAzPx@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·7 minutes agoNo, this would be a civil suit, so it’s just preponderance of the evidence. Not hard to meet that for a case like this.
Over here it’s not “illegal”, they just fire you with a different reason if you even as much as mention what you earn to a coworker.
They should sue. Even at will doesn’t let you fire for illegal reasons and that’s an illegal reason. Employment attorneys take cases on contingency and live for these sort of slam dunk, easy win cases.
You would still have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your firing was due to the salary discussion and not something else.
It’s like when a cop wants to pull you over: if they follow you long enough you’ll make enough of a mistake for the pretense.
No, this would be a civil suit, so it’s just preponderance of the evidence. Not hard to meet that for a case like this.