Being fired for a legal activity

Probs the same way a football coach can be fired for going to a strip club (which is also legal).
 
Believe it or not it is legal for an employer to fire you for off the job speech or being in a demonstration of any kind (absent employment contract to the contrary).
 
subgenius said:
Believe it or not it is legal for an employer to fire you for off the job speech or being in a demonstration of any kind (absent employment contract to the contrary).
Click to expand...

Do not believe it, sorry.
 
Wow. I once saw a police officer smoking and he was in his uniform, so he might of been smoking on duty.
 
subgenius said:
Believe it or not it is legal for an employer to fire you for off the job speech or being in a demonstration of any kind (absent employment contract to the contrary).
Click to expand...

Well, in employment-at-will states, which I believe are in the vast majority, it is perfectly legal for a private employer to fire an employee for "a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all" (quoting from a legion of appellate decisions addressing the issue).

The only exceptions are when there is an employment contract to the contrary, or for certain statutory exceptions, most notably anti-discrimination statutes and those protecting employees from being fired merely for exercising their rights, such as filing a worker's compensation claim or reporting workplace safety violations to OSHA or other authorities.

Therefore, as an employer, I can fire my employee simply because I don't like the color of her shoes. There is nothing she can do about it, save for filing for unemployment compensation.

In the case of police officers, they are either local government or state employees. In either case, I suspect government workers' employment rights are governed by regulations affording them at least certain minimal procedural protections, such as the right to a hearing or an administrative appeals process.

People need to get rid of this misguided notion that they have a "right" to their jobs. Most employers are private, and do not owe their employees unfettered lifetime employment, despite bad or insubordinate behavior on the part of the employees.

I realize this has nothing to do with the smoking police officer, but it seems to be a very commonly held belief.

AS
 
In other countries, different rules apply. In Denmark, you cannot fire an employee for "any reason or no reason at all". Most people here are members of unions, but there are also laws to give some protection to those who are not.

Here, you can basically not be fired for legal activities pursued in your off-duty time. There are a number of exceptions, though. Public illoyalty to your emplyer is one that has cost a number of people their job. Some (but few) companies have contracts that forbid emplyees to smoke, even in their own time; but such contracts are not always legal. Some drugs (especially cannabis types) have long-term effects; if justified by job-safety, it is legal to forbid employees to smoke cannabis in their free time. Note: It is legal to possess and use small amounts of cannabis in Denmark, however it is not legal to sell it.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
In other countries, different rules apply. In Denmark, you cannot fire an employee for "any reason or no reason at all". Most people here are members of unions, but there are also laws to give some protection to those who are not.
Click to expand...

Hans,

I suspect very much that is simply not the case. i doubt very much that employment law in Denmark is radically different from that in the US. The employment at will doctrine is very old and comes from English Common law from centuries ago.

In the case of union members, many aspects of their employment, and hence their termination, are governed by collective bargaining agreements. This means their employment is governed by an employment contract which is common to union members. Therefore, it would be one of the exceptions to the "employment at will" doctrine which is so prevalent.

The fact that unions and anti-discrimination laws exist has given rise to so much confusion and belief that employers are hostages to their employees. Employers often cower in fear of a lawsuit if they try to take any adverse action against an employee. That's just BS.

AS
 
AmateurScientist said:


Hans,

I suspect very much that is simply not the case. i doubt very much that employment law in Denmark is radically different from that in the US. The employment at will doctrine is very old and comes from English Common law from centuries ago.

*snip*
AS
Click to expand...
Well, they are (things have changed a bit during the last centuries, after all). There is a specific set of laws covering civil cervants (a police officer would be a civil servant here). Other types of employees, the best English word I can think of is clerks, also have a set of laws governing their employment. Hourly paid workers are generally covered by union agreements.

Some types of jobs are out in the dark, but generally, you cannot fire somebody here without a legal reason. We have numerous court cases all the time about illegal termination.

That this should leave employers as hostages is, however, a myth. First of all, there are plenty of legal reasons for firing people, and even if there isn't one, you can get rid of them anyway, it's just more expensive.

Also, both laws and union contracts proscribe ritghts and duties to both sides. I have worked as a manager for 12 years, and I can tell you that this system is mostly for mutual advantage.

Hans
 
I heard he got axed cause the smoking thing ties into the polices disabilty, retirement or health plan. Basically the city is like "we'll give you this awesome health benefit plan BUT you promis that you cant smoke."

He smoked.
 
Tmy said:
I heard he got axed cause the smoking thing ties into the polices disabilty, retirement or health plan. Basically the city is like "we'll give you this awesome health benefit plan BUT you promis that you cant smoke."

He smoked.
Click to expand...
In that case, it makes sense that they got mad at him.
 
The only exceptions are when there is an employment contract to the contrary, or for certain statutory exceptions, most notably anti-discrimination statutes and those protecting employees from being fired merely for exercising their rights, such as filing a worker's compensation claim or reporting workplace safety violations to OSHA or other authorities.

Therefore, as an employer, I can fire my employee simply because I don't like the color of her shoes. There is nothing she can do about it, save for filing for unemployment compensation.
Click to expand...

Well then, after my employee reports me for violating worker's rights, or safety regulations I can fire her for the color of her shoes.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Well, they are (things have changed a bit during the last centuries, after all). There is a specific set of laws covering civil cervants (a police officer would be a civil servant here). Other types of employees, the best English word I can think of is clerks, also have a set of laws governing their employment. Hourly paid workers are generally covered by union agreements.

Some types of jobs are out in the dark, but generally, you cannot fire somebody here without a legal reason. We have numerous court cases all the time about illegal termination.

That this should leave employers as hostages is, however, a myth. First of all, there are plenty of legal reasons for firing people, and even if there isn't one, you can get rid of them anyway, it's just more expensive.

Also, both laws and union contracts proscribe ritghts and duties to both sides. I have worked as a manager for 12 years, and I can tell you that this system is mostly for mutual advantage.

Hans
Click to expand...

You haven't said anything here which contradicts my post.

The existence of union contracts does not do away with the employment at will doctrine. It merely introduces duties and rights which are not present absent an agreement.

I acknowledged that government employees usually have procedural protections that are not afforded private workers.

That there are lawsuits filed over employment termination does not mean that employment at will does not exist in your country. We have plenty of employment discrimination suits here. The vast majority of them lose, primarly due to the tremendous amount of misunderstanding about what unlawful discrimination is.

Merely being fired or laid off does not mean you are being unlawfully discriminated against. Based on the scores of persons I have counseled on this issue, I would have to conclude that there is a lot of misunderstanding about just that.

A plaintiff alleging unlawful discrimination must first plead and provide evidence supporting a prima facie case. Only then does the burden shift to the employer to show a lawful reason for firing (or taking some other adverse personnel action against) the employee. You seem to be shifting the burden to the employer from the beginning. Again, I seriously doubt that is the case in Denmark.

AS

AS
 
How common is it in the US for the outside of work hours activities of employees to be restricted because of health insurance considerations (it seems like one hell of a slippery slope to me)?
 
AmateurScientist said:


You haven't said anything here which contradicts my post.

Merely being fired or laid off does not mean you are being unlawfully discriminated against. Based on the scores of persons I have counseled on this issue, I would have to conclude that there is a lot of misunderstanding about just that.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling Danish law is similar to Norwegian, but I've been unable to track down the Danish equivalent to this:

Act No. 4 of 4 February 1977 relating to
Worker Protection and Working Environment

Chapter XII. Dismissal with notice and summary dismissal, etc.

Section 60. Protection against unfair dismissal.
1. Employees may not be dismissed unless this is objectively justified on the basis of matters connected with the establishment, the employer or the employee.
Click to expand...

This has the force of law in Norway, meaning you cannot dismiss an employee unless you have objective justification. The color of ones shoes isn't.
 
Fired cop fighting back

http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/smok06222003.htm

(no registration required)

Fall River police officer fired for smoking after an anonymous tipster ratted him out is fighting the move, saying his dismissal clears the way for departments and disgruntled citizens to take revenge on cops.

``I don't think when they drafted this law they intended it to be used in this manner,'' said Wayne Jeffrey, a seven-year veteran of the Fall River force who was fired based on an unsigned letter claiming Jeffrey smoked at a party. ``The thing I'm concerned about is, I could lose my job over an anonymous letter.''

Sounds like he's attacking the process, not the employers right to fire him.
 
AmateurScientist said:
You haven't said anything here which contradicts my post.

In that case, I do not understand your post. We have LAWS here putting down rules for dismissal of employees. Practically all employees are either covered by these laws, by union contracts or by personal contracts, the latter mainly on the management level. You cannot (except on management level) hire somebody on a contract or other agreement that gives them less rights than stipulated by law.

I assume that basically, employment at will is valid here too, but there is a lot of regulation on top of it.
*snip*

I acknowledged that government employees usually have procedural protections that are not afforded private workers.

That there are lawsuits filed over employment termination does not mean that employment at will does not exist in your country. We have plenty of employment discrimination suits here. The vast majority of them lose, primarly due to the tremendous amount of misunderstanding about what unlawful discrimination is.

Here, about 50% of them are won by employees.

Merely being fired or laid off does not mean you are being unlawfully discriminated against.

An employer has to state a reason for dismissal, and it cannot be the color of your shoes.

Based on the scores of persons I have counseled on this issue, I would have to conclude that there is a lot of misunderstanding about just that.

I gather this counselling have taken place in the US? Have you got any knowledge of European legislation in general and Danish in particular?

*snip*
Again, I seriously doubt that is the case in Denmark.

I am informing you that rules are different here. I have been involved in several dismissals. It has been part of my job for a decade to know the rules.

AS
Click to expand...

I have at no point doubted your insight in US conditions. I merely pointed out that different conditions existed elsewhere.

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom