Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

ATLBound · 01-25-2011, 10:51 PM

(01-25-2011 10:42 PM)Jesus Wrote: The tie will become irrelevant if this goes to trial, and it won't. Once they get before a judge the employer will dig up all kinds of things the plaintiff did in the past and use the tie and his insubordination as the last straw.

If anything they will settle for an undisclosed amount and by then it won't be news.

Of course this would never have happened had the Bears won. So as usual it's Jay Cutler's fault.

This is why this is an easy lawsuit.

If the Bears won this wouldn't have happened

If the guy was wearing a totally irrelevant team, i.e. the Steelers, then this wouldn't have happened...

but because this a rival team and they lost to them and they are in Illinois then it's a problem? What about that does not speak to discrimination?

***Peyton*** · 01-25-2011, 10:51 PM

(01-25-2011 10:47 PM)ATLBound Wrote: He CLEARLY was asking him to remove the tie because of the Packer ASSOCIATION. If that was a Bears tie, then would he ask him to remove it?

Heck no!!!

So the subject here is NOT the tie, it's what's ON the tie.

Man, you just aren't getting it. He didn't deny him employment because of an association or deny him an association, he simply asked him to take a tie off.

There is nothing to see here.

Insubordination. The boss ask you to do something simple, you do it.

I personally think this guy is a fucking idiot for putting his family in jeopardy over a tie. A moron that guy is.

Glad it worked out for him though.

***Peyton*** · 01-25-2011, 10:54 PM

(01-25-2011 10:51 PM)ATLBound Wrote: This is why this is an easy lawsuit.

If the Bears won this wouldn't have happened

If the guy was wearing a totally irrelevant team, i.e. the Steelers, then this wouldn't have happened...

but because this a rival team and they lost to them and they are in Illinois then it's a problem? What about that does not speak to discrimination?

I could be a gay guy and work at the record store but I probably couldn't get away with wearing a shirt that says "I Suck Cock".

Besides, there is another reason there is no lawsuit here. There are no damages. The guy aready got another job doing the same thing.

ATLBound · 01-25-2011, 11:01 PM

(01-25-2011 10:48 PM)Peyton Wrote: Insubordination has nothing to do with being the owner, I don't know where you are going with that.

This is not a case of a guy being fired for wearing a tie. This is a case where a supervisor gave an employee instructions and the employee simply refused to follow those instructions.

Really it's just that simple.

Dude you're making my point for me. He wasn't fired for being out of dress code. He wasn't fired for being rude to a customer. He CLEARLY wasn't fired for lack of sales or production.

He was fired for being a fan of the Packers.

How can I make this simpler?.....

Say I work at a place that is neutral and let's you express your feelings however you want to....

My supervisor did not own the business but he was an atheists. I was never advised that I couldn't support my religion. I came to work with a shirt that says "I love Jesus" on it.

He can express his feelings about the shirt but he can't fire me for it. Now if after that day they change the rules and make this a part of some form of dress code or expression then I wouldn't be able to wear it anymore.

I will talk to my HR apartment at work about it, but there is supposed to be so many hours of communication for a change in rule if there is any, regardless of privately owned or not.

This is not insubordination, it is discriminatory

Jesus · 01-25-2011, 11:03 PM

I love you too.

(01-25-2011 11:01 PM)ATLBound Wrote: Dude you're making my point for me. He wasn't fired for being out of dress code. He wasn't fired for being rude to a customer. He CLEARLY wasn't fired for lack of sales or production.

He was fired for being a fan of the Packers.

How can I make this simpler?.....

Say I work at a place that is neutral and let's you express your feelings however you want to....

My supervisor did not own the business but he was an atheists. I was never advised that I couldn't support my religion. I came to work with a shirt that says "I love Jesus" on it.

He can express his feelings about the shirt but he can't fire me for it. Now if after that day they change the rules and make this a part of some form of dress code or expression then I wouldn't be able to wear it anymore.

I will talk to my HR apartment at work about it, but there is supposed to be so many hours of communication for a change in rule if there is any, regardless of privately owned or not.

This is not insubordination, it is discriminatory

***Peyton*** · 01-25-2011, 11:05 PM

(01-25-2011 11:01 PM)ATLBound Wrote: Dude you're making my point for me. He wasn't fired for being out of dress code. He wasn't fired for being rude to a customer. He CLEARLY wasn't fired for lack of sales or production.

He was fired for being a fan of the Packers.

How can I make this simpler?.....

Say I work at a place that is neutral and let's you express your feelings however you want to....

My supervisor did not own the business but he was an atheists. I was never advised that I couldn't support my religion. I came to work with a shirt that says "I love Jesus" on it.

He can express his feelings about the shirt but he can't fire me for it. Now if after that day they change the rules and make this a part of some form of dress code or expression then I wouldn't be able to wear it anymore.

I will talk to my HR apartment at work about it, but there is supposed to be so many hours of communication for a change in rule if there is any, regardless of privately owned or not.

This is not insubordination, it is discriminatory

You are the one that's not getting it. There is no existing right to wear a Packers tie at a Chicago dealership. It's not protected in the constitution.

He was given instruction. He refused to follow instruction. He's fired. End of story.

ATLBound · 01-25-2011, 11:09 PM

(01-25-2011 10:54 PM)Peyton Wrote: I could be a gay guy and work at the record store but I probably couldn't get away with wearing a shirt that says "I Suck Cock".

Besides, there is another reason there is no lawsuit here. There are no damages. The guy aready got another job doing the same thing.

That's called offensive language. That's why you couldn't wear that shirt.

I'm not supporting his actions, but this is unlawful in court eyes.

But you CAN be openly gay, just like he can openly be a fan. Especially given the way he fired him.

He's within the dress code. He was not ever told he couldn't wear the Packers tie until the day of. Legally he can't make up rules as he goes.

***Peyton*** · 01-25-2011, 11:13 PM

(01-25-2011 11:09 PM)ATLBound Wrote: That's called offensive language. That's why you couldn't wear that shirt.

I'm not supporting his actions, but this is unlawful in court eyes.

But you CAN be openly gay, just like he can openly be a fan. Especially given the way he fired him.

He's within the dress code. He was not ever told he couldn't wear the Packers tie until the day of. Legally he can't make up rules as he goes.

That is where you, and everybody else making this argument, is just making up employment law. There is no reason a boss can't make discretionary changes to a dress code on the fly.

lsmalls15 · 01-25-2011, 11:19 PM

(01-25-2011 10:47 PM)ATLBound Wrote: He CLEARLY was asking him to remove the tie because of the Packer ASSOCIATION. If that was a Bears tie, then would he ask him to remove it?

Heck no!!!

So the subject here is NOT the tie, it's what's ON the tie.

I don;t know the situation you were in as a manager, but changes to work outfits would be in relation to dress code. He was well within his dress code.

The few things that would nullify the subject of the tie being legal to ask for removal would be offensive language, religion, or logos.

Every major corporation has those 3 things in their dress code or handbook.

Can't wear or support vividly a religion, offensive language, and in my company I can't wear huge logos.

I can't even say Merry Christmas during the holiday season to customers. I have to say Happy holidays, but if I wanted to talk sports to a customer then I could.

ATLBound, take a closer look at the association clause:

* denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability.

Notice that it's not just any association that meets the discrimination threshold. It must be an association with an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or individual with a disability. Nowhere is association with a sports team denoted as a protected affiliation...and it would take a damn good lawyer to convince a jury that Packer Nation fits the definition of national origin.

V Chip · 01-25-2011, 11:19 PM

Illinois is an at-will state.

http://research.lawyers.com/Illinois/Emp...inois.html Wrote:In Illinois, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it's not illegal.

It is not illegal to fire someone for wearing a tie of a football team -- i.e., "football team" is not a protected class under Illinois law. Therefore, he can be fired for wearing said tie -- he didn't even need to be asked to remove it, he could have simply been fired as he walked in to the building.