Texas Macy’s Employee Fired for Allegedly Violating Store’s LGBT Policy

[Shadow]

A Texas woman claims she was fired from her job at Macy’s for telling a transgender customer that she could not change in the women’s dressing room, according to ABC News’ San Antonio affiliate KSAT. (http://www.ksat.com/news/Macy-s-employee-fired-after-violating-company-s-LGBT-policy/-/478452/4896064/-/133oi6u/-/)
The woman, Natalie Johnson, has filed a complaint with the Federal Employment Commission, saying that her religious beliefs prevent her from recognizing transgender people, according to KSAT.
Johnson, 27, was employed at the River Center Macy’s in San Antonio until last week. She said a teenager caught her attention because the teen was shopping for women’s clothing, but Johnson was convinced the shopper was male.
When Johnson spotted the teenager in the women’s dressing area, Johnson told her she could not change there.
“I had to just be straightforward and tell him, ‘You’re a man,’ and of course that … really got him steamed,” Johnson told KSAT. (http://www.ksat.com/news/Macy-s-employee-fired-after-violating-company-s-LGBT-policy/-/478452/4896064/-/133oi6u/-/)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/12/texas-macys-employee-fired-for-allegedly-violating-stores-lgbt-policy/

[ConHog]

A Texas woman claims she was fired from her job at Macy’s for telling a transgender customer that she could not change in the women’s dressing room, according to ABC News’ San Antonio affiliate KSAT. (http://www.ksat.com/news/Macy-s-employee-fired-after-violating-company-s-LGBT-policy/-/478452/4896064/-/133oi6u/-/)
The woman, Natalie Johnson, has filed a complaint with the Federal Employment Commission, saying that her religious beliefs prevent her from recognizing transgender people, according to KSAT.
Johnson, 27, was employed at the River Center Macy’s in San Antonio until last week. She said a teenager caught her attention because the teen was shopping for women’s clothing, but Johnson was convinced the shopper was male.
When Johnson spotted the teenager in the women’s dressing area, Johnson told her she could not change there.
“I had to just be straightforward and tell him, ‘You’re a man,’ and of course that … really got him steamed,” Johnson told KSAT. (http://www.ksat.com/news/Macy-s-employee-fired-after-violating-company-s-LGBT-policy/-/478452/4896064/-/133oi6u/-/)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/12/texas-macys-employee-fired-for-allegedly-violating-stores-lgbt-policy/



Oh well. A company has a right to fire for nearly any reason without explanation.

[Kathianne]

A Texas woman claims she was fired from her job at Macy’s for telling a transgender customer that she could not change in the women’s dressing room, according to ABC News’ San Antonio affiliate KSAT. (http://www.ksat.com/news/Macy-s-employee-fired-after-violating-company-s-LGBT-policy/-/478452/4896064/-/133oi6u/-/)
The woman, Natalie Johnson, has filed a complaint with the Federal Employment Commission, saying that her religious beliefs prevent her from recognizing transgender people, according to KSAT.
Johnson, 27, was employed at the River Center Macy’s in San Antonio until last week. She said a teenager caught her attention because the teen was shopping for women’s clothing, but Johnson was convinced the shopper was male.
When Johnson spotted the teenager in the women’s dressing area, Johnson told her she could not change there.
“I had to just be straightforward and tell him, ‘You’re a man,’ and of course that … really got him steamed,” Johnson told KSAT. (http://www.ksat.com/news/Macy-s-employee-fired-after-violating-company-s-LGBT-policy/-/478452/4896064/-/133oi6u/-/)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/12/texas-macys-employee-fired-for-allegedly-violating-stores-lgbt-policy/

If I was a customer and found a male in dressing room, I'd be upset. Score one for the employee.

However, I do not look at others in dressing room, perhaps a dress or what have you if they cross my line of view. I'm concentrating on what I'm trying on.

Unless the trans was forcing his presence on others, the employee in this case might as well have been wearing the veil from Islamic states, that more than one store has said no to.

[darin]

I'm interested in hearing how in the hell the employee felt putting a guy in a ladies' dressing room was 'against her religion'? That's a very very stupid defense. Truth is, the employee failed to follow store policy - the firing was probably warranted. Now employee is crying boo'hoo? Don't like the policy, quit and work for a place w/ a dif policy.

[Shadow]

If I was a customer and found a male in dressing room, I'd be upset. Score one for the employee.

However, I do not look at others in dressing room, perhaps a dress or what have you if they cross my line of view. I'm concentrating on what I'm trying on.

Unless the trans was forcing his presence on others, the employee in this case might as well have been wearing the veil from Islamic states, that more than one store has said no to.

I like how it is now okay to make your other customers uncomfortable, just to accommodate the minority. So, if other women don't want men (even if they are dressed as women) running around the women's dressing rooms around them and their daughters... then too bad...is that how it works? Do they ever take these things into consideration at all...do they take surveys to see what the other customers think about stuff like this?

Anyway...if they are going to accommodate transgender folks now...why don't they give them their own dressing rooms? I guess it's good that Macy's dressing rooms are just that...private little rooms all to yourself...not stalls like other places.

I get that they can create whatever policy they want...and fire employees when they breech them. I just thought this story odd. The way the dressing rooms are set up at Macy's...what's the big deal about dressing in the men's section? They just trying to prove a point once again or something (The gay community).

[ConHog]

I like how it is now okay to make your other customers uncomfortable, just to accommodate the minority. So, if other women don't want men (even if they are dressed as women) running around the women's dressing rooms around them and their daughters... then too bad...is that how it works? Do they ever take these things into consideration at all...do they take surveys to see what the other customers think about stuff like this?

Anyway...if they are going to accommodate transgender folks now...why don't they give them their own dressing rooms? I guess it's good that Macy's dressing rooms are just that...private little rooms all to yourself...not stalls like other places.

I get that they can create whatever policy they want...and fire employees when they breech them. I just thought this story odd. The way the dressing rooms are set up at Macy's...what's the big deal about dressing in the men's section? They just trying to prove a point once again or something (The gay community).

The CORRECT response would have been for her to notify her supervisor of the problem and then quit the job if she objected to the store policy that strongly.

It's kinda like people who fight with a shoplifter then cry when fired. Well you have to follow company policy........

[Shadow]

The CORRECT response would have been for her to notify her supervisor of the problem and then quit the job if she objected to the store policy that strongly.

It's kinda like people who fight with a shoplifter then cry when fired. Well you have to follow company policy........

I wasn't questioning the reason why she was fired.

[ConHog]

I wasn't questioning the reason why she was fired.

Then what are you questioning? I guess I misread your point.

[Shadow]

Then what are you questioning? I guess I misread your point.

The policy and store set up.

I'm assuming it was to make transgenders feel more comfortable. What about the customer's that are women?

[ConHog]

The policy and store set up.

I'm assuming it was to make transgenders feel more comfortable. What about the customer's that are women?

Well you're talking to a person who firmly believes a company should be able to be stupid enough to hang up a sign saying "we don't serve niggers' and face the consequences if they so choose. So, I would likewise defend THIS company's right to set their own policy and if you as a customer, or employee, don't like it. Go elsewhere.

[Shadow]

Well you're talking to a person who firmly believes a company should be able to be stupid enough to hang up a sign saying "we don't serve niggers' and face the consequences if they so choose. So, I would likewise defend THIS company's right to set their own policy and if you as a customer, or employee, don't like it. Go elsewhere.

I'm fine with that. I was just wondering why the "agenda",behind this policy? Especially when you consider what Macy's dressing rooms look like (have you been in one)? I'm going to say that their biggest market is probably women and their credit cards. Not Transgendered men. I just thought it was odd...that's all.

[ConHog]

I'm fine with that. I was just wondering why the "agenda",behind this policy? Especially when you consider what Macy's dressing rooms look like (have you been in one)? I'm going to say that their biggest market is probably women and their credit cards. Not Transgendered men. I just thought it was odd...that's all.

I don't clothes shop. I just wear what magically appears in my closet and dresser. :dance:

[Shadow]

I don't clothes shop. I just wear what magically appears in my closet and dresser. :dance:


Well, they are nice enough to live in. I'm surprised the occupiers haven't thought of it yet. ;)

[ConHog]

Well, they are nice enough to live in. I'm surprised the occupiers haven't thought of it yet. ;)

I got plenty of dogs and guns. I'd love to see the Occupiers try to settle in on my land. :laugh2:

[Shadow]

I got plenty of dogs and guns. I'd love to see the Occupiers try to settle in on my land. :laugh2:

I was talking about the dressing rooms at Macy's...not your drawers. Perv. :laugh::slap:

[ConHog]

I was talking about the dressing rooms at Macy's...not your drawers. Perv. :laugh::slap:



Perv? I thought you were talking about my drawers, not my draws. LOL

[fj1200]

Oh well. A company has a right to fire for nearly any reason without explanation.

Not really, but she should have known company policy.

[jimnyc]

Not really, but she should have known company policy.

He's closer than you think. The majority of employees are working as "at will" in the US. Therefore, employers, for the most part, can toss any employee they like, at any time, for any reason, so long as that reason is not unlawful. And they VERY rarely ever need to give an explanation.

[ConHog]

He's closer than you think. The majority of employees are working as "at will" in the US. Therefore, employers, for the most part, can toss any employee they like, at any time, for any reason, so long as that reason is not unlawful. And they VERY rarely ever need to give an explanation.

Which of course makes sense unless we are also going to limit why an employee can quit a job.

[jimnyc]

Which of course makes sense unless we are also going to limit why an employee can quit a job.

And that's the flip side, at least ever since slavery. An employee can quit at any time, without a reason and without obligation to their employer. (in the same "at will" environment of course)

[ConHog]

And that's the flip side, at least ever since slavery. An employee can quit at any time, without a reason and without obligation to their employer. (in the same "at will" environment of course)

It always made me laugh when my friends would talk about their job requiring a 2 week notice if an employee was quitting. Made me wonder if those companies gave a 2 weeks notice if they were going to fire an employee. :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

In some of the stores our where daughter shops, there is one big dressing room, with private stalls, for both genders. As long as I am not out in a common non-private area, I really don't care.

However, if I am in a common room, I really don't want to see a man in there, regardless of what he is trying on.

[fj1200]

He's closer than you think. The majority of employees are working as "at will" in the US. Therefore, employers, for the most part, can toss any employee they like, at any time, for any reason, so long as that reason is not unlawful. And they VERY rarely ever need to give an explanation.

We've had this discussion before (which I think ended with a lot of spitting and pulling of hair :laugh: ) and there are a whole lot of wrongful termination suits, even in at-will states, that disputes the statement.

[jimnyc]

We've had this discussion before (which I think ended with a lot of spitting and pulling of hair :laugh: ) and there are a whole lot of wrongful termination suits, even in at-will states, that disputes the statement.

A lot of suits doesn't change what I wrote. Also, people can sue for whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they'll win. Wrongful term suits against employers who didn't "unlawfully" terminate them are VERY rare. Without specific cases, and speaking in general - I stand by my statement that the majority of employed Americans are employed "at will". Employees can terminate anyone for any reason at any time - so long as it's not unlawful. Example - suppose you work at Sears stocking shelves. You've been there for a year now and your employment is in good standing, you've received on good review thus far and a nice pay increase. You come into work one day wearing a Dallas Cowboys jersey. Your boss can terminate you because he is a NY Giants fan. This would, in almost every "at will" scenario, be a 100% legal termination, and the employee's only recourse is to file for unemployment.

I placed the above in bold as it's a general statement, but one that will be true in the majority of cases.

[Noir]

The policy and store set up.

I'm assuming it was to make transgenders feel more comfortable. What about the customer's that are women?

I don't get why a women would feel uncomfortable anyways? I mean I've never been in a women's changing room, but I imagine they're the same as men's. ie a walk way with a number of doors either side, containing a small room with a mirror, and ofcourse ones the door is closed and locked its *totally* private...so where's the problem?

[fj1200]

A lot of suits doesn't change what I wrote. Also, people can sue for whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they'll win. Wrongful term suits against employers who didn't "unlawfully" terminate them are VERY rare. Without specific cases, and speaking in general - I stand by my statement that the majority of employed Americans are employed "at will". Employees can terminate anyone for any reason at any time - so long as it's not unlawful. Example - suppose you work at Sears stocking shelves. You've been there for a year now and your employment is in good standing, you've received on good review thus far and a nice pay increase. You come into work one day wearing a Dallas Cowboys jersey. Your boss can terminate you because he is a NY Giants fan. This would, in almost every "at will" scenario, be a 100% legal termination, and the employee's only recourse is to file for unemployment.

I placed the above in bold as it's a general statement, but one that will be true in the majority of cases.

I don't necessarily disagree with your bold but I'm sure Sears corporate would have an issue with your scenario.

[jimnyc]

I don't necessarily disagree with your bold but I'm sure Sears corporate would have an issue with your scenario.

Depends on who gets the case and which team he likes!! :laugh:

Yes, corporate might take action against a manager, or might not, that comes down to company policy or how the corporate manager feels that day. But regardless of what action they may or may not take against the manager, the firing would still remain legal.

[ConHog]

I don't get why a women would feel uncomfortable anyways? I mean I've never been in a women's changing room, but I imagine they're the same as men's. ie a walk way with a number of doors either side, containing a small room with a mirror, and ofcourse ones the door is closed and locked its *totally* private...so where's the problem?

I've been in a few women's changing rooms in my day. Always by invitation though. LOL

[ConHog]

I don't necessarily disagree with your bold but I'm sure Sears corporate would have an issue with your scenario.



Probably so, but Sears corporate =/= the judicial system.

[CSM]

I've been in a few women's changing rooms in my day. Always by invitation though. LOL

I've seen women change too. Usually from the sweet loving girl somebody married to the evil bitch from hell.

[ConHog]

I've seen women change too. Usually from the sweet loving girl somebody married to the evil bitch from hell.

Yes, I have an ex wife as well :laugh2: Luckily the one I have now is if anything even sweeter than she was when we first wed.

[fj1200]

Probably so, but Sears corporate =/= the judicial system.

The Sears handbook defines their roles/responsibilities and will certainly be discussed in court.

[ConHog]

The Sears handbook defines their roles/responsibilities and will certainly be discussed in court.

Only in terms of a civil suit. Not in terms of the legality of their firing her.

[fj1200]

^Do you think the Sears handbook defines disciplinary proceedings? I don't think "Your boss can terminate you because he is a NY Giants fan" is covered in there.

[jimnyc]

^Do you think the Sears handbook defines disciplinary proceedings? I don't think "Your boss can terminate you because he is a NY Giants fan" is covered in there.

As long as a termination is not unlawful, it's not a wrongful termination in 99 out of 100 cases. Any competent attorney or HR rep will tell you that a handbook is meant as a guideline, and if anything, are written in a manner to protect the employer.

In the example above with the Giants, attorneys use this very example in seminars all over, and it's simply not something the employee will have any recourse with. In cases you may have read where a handbook has been deemed a contract, they would be an extremely rare occurrence. Absent a bonafide contract, you're almost always deemed an at will employee with solely the rights the state you are in govern.

[ConHog]

As long as a termination is not unlawful, it's not a wrongful termination in 99 out of 100 cases. Any competent attorney or HR rep will tell you that a handbook is meant as a guideline, and if anything, are written in a manner to protect the employer.

In the example above with the Giants, attorneys use this very example in seminars all over, and it's simply not something the employee will have any recourse with. In cases you may have read where a handbook has been deemed a contract, they would be an extremely rare occurrence. Absent a bonafide contract, you're almost always deemed an at will employee with solely the rights the state you are in govern.

Not even to mention what kind of idiot is going to list " Cowboys fan" as a reason for termination anyway? More like " Couldn't get along with supervisor" :laugh2:

[ConHog]

^Do you think the Sears handbook defines disciplinary proceedings? I don't think "Your boss can terminate you because he is a NY Giants fan" is covered in there.

Sure it does, and Sears themselves would probably internally discipline our fictional supervisor, but at the same time they would go to court and defend his decision if the former employee sued.

[jimnyc]

As long as a termination is not unlawful, it's not a wrongful termination in 99 out of 100 cases. Any competent attorney or HR rep will tell you that a handbook is meant as a guideline, and if anything, are written in a manner to protect the employer.

In the example above with the Giants, attorneys use this very example in seminars all over, and it's simply not something the employee will have any recourse with. In cases you may have read where a handbook has been deemed a contract, they would be an extremely rare occurrence. Absent a bonafide contract, you're almost always deemed an at will employee with solely the rights the state you are in govern.

Let me add to that... Basically, here is the definition for "at will employment"


At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine:

In most states, employment is generally considered "at will," meaning that the employer can terminate employment (or the employee may voluntarily leave) at any time. An employer's right to fire an employee may be limited, however, where the employee can show that the employer entered into either an explicit contract to retain the employee for a certain length of time, or an "implied contract" which dictates that employment will be terminated only for specific disciplinary reasons.

And as to a possible "implied contract" coming out of a handbook. You'll see, it's only under specific circumstances, and generally only when an employer is dumb enough to make a mistake in their handbook:


Thirty-seven U.S. states (and the District of Columbia) also recognize an implied contract as an exception to at-will employment.[17] Under the implied contract exception, an employer may not fire an employee "when an implied contract is formed between an employer and employee, even though no express, written instrument regarding the employment relationship exists."[17] Proving the terms of an implied contract is often difficult, and the burden of proof is on the fired employee. Implied employment contracts are most often found when an employer's personnel policies or handbooks indicate that an employee will not be fired except for good cause or specify a process for firing. If the employer fires the employee in violation of an implied employment contract, the employer may be found liable for breach of contract.

And case law on the same page:


The implied-contract theory to circumvent at will employment must be treated with caution. In 2006, the Texas Court of Civil Appeals in Matagorda County Hospital District, Petitioner v Christine Burwell, Respondent,[20] held that a provision in an employee handbook stating that dismissal may be for cause, and requiring employee records to specify the reason for termination, did not modify an employee's at-will employment. The New York Court of Appeals, that state’s highest Court, also rejected the implied-contract theory to circumvent employment at will. In Anthony Lobosco, Appellant v New York Telephone Company/NYNEX, Respondent,[21] the court restated the prevailing rule that an employee could not maintain an action for wrongful discharge where state law recognized neither the tort of wrongful discharge, nor exceptions for firings that violate public policy, and an employee's explicit employee handbook disclaimer preserved the at-will employment relationship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

[fj1200]

Sure it does, and Sears themselves would probably internally discipline our fictional supervisor, but at the same time they would go to court and defend his decision if the former employee sued.

"So Mr. Sears VP of HR, tell me, why did you discipline your supervisor if the terminated employee was not terminated unlawfully?"

"Uhhh..."

[fj1200]

The employment-at-will doctrine: (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf)
three major exceptions (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf)


Public-Policy Exception:
Under the public-policy exception to employment at will, an
employee is wrongfully discharged when the termination is
against an explicit, well-established public policy of the State.
For example, in most States, an employer cannot terminate an
employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim after being
injured on the job, or for refusing to break the law at the request of the employer. The majority view among States is that
public policy may be found in either a State constitution,
statute, or administrative rule, but some States have either
restricted or expanded the doctrine beyond this bound.
The public-policy exception is the most widely accepted exception, recognized in 43 of the 50 States. (See map 1.)

Implied-Contract Exception:
The second major exception to the employment-at-will doctrine is applied when an implied contract is formed between an
employer and employee, even though no express, written instrument regarding the employment relationship exists. Although employment is typically not governed by a contract,
an employer may make oral or written representations to employees regarding job security or procedures that will be followed when adverse employment actions are taken. If so,
these representations may create a contract for employment.
This exception is recognized in 38 of the 50 States. (See map 2.)

Covenant-of-Good-Faith Exception:
Recognized by only 11 States (see map 3), the exception for a
covenant of good faith and fair dealing represents the most
significant departure from the traditional employment-at-will
doctrine.


Rather than narrowly prohibiting terminations
based on public policy or an implied contract, this exception—
at its broadest—reads a covenant of good faith and fair dealing into every employment relationship. It has been interpreted
to mean either that employer personnel decisions are subject
to a “just cause” standard or that terminations made in bad
faith or motivated by malice are prohibited.




I'm just saying there are exceptions.

[logroller]

I don't necessarily disagree with your bold but I'm sure Sears corporate would have an issue with your scenario.


Depends on who gets the case and which team he likes!! :laugh:


I believe Sears' Corporate policy says "Da Bears rule"; dissent should be dealt with quickly--Ditka-style!!!

[ConHog]

"So Mr. Sears VP of HR, tell me, why did you discipline your supervisor if the terminated employee was not terminated unlawfully?"

"Uhhh..."

Are you serious?

" Well you see, although we fully believe that as a corporation we have the legal right to fire any employee we don't approve of for whatever reason, we disciplined THIS supervisor because we don't feel he followed the correct procedure for doing so. However, that has no bearing on the fact that what he did was LEGAL."

[fj1200]

Are you serious?

" Well you see, although we fully believe that as a corporation we have the legal right to fire any employee we don't approve of for whatever reason, we disciplined THIS supervisor because we don't feel he followed the correct procedure for doing so. However, that has no bearing on the fact that what he did was LEGAL."

Your supervisor didn't follow your own procedures as defined in your handbook which created an implied contract with your terminated employee? Finding for plaintiff! :gavel:


7. An employer who has not followed specific disciplinary and termination policies that are in place can also face a wrongful discharge suit. For example, if an employer has a handbook that states that employees are entitled to receive two written warnings for misconduct or poor performance before they are terminated, and an employee is terminated after receiving only one verbal warning, that employee may be able to successfully bring a wrongful discharge action.
http://employment.findlaw.com/employment/employment-employee-job-loss/le9_2ten.html

[ConHog]

Your supervisor didn't follow your own procedures as defined in your handbook which created an implied contract with your terminated employee? Finding for plaintiff! :gavel:


http://employment.findlaw.com/employment/employment-employee-job-loss/le9_2ten.html

No employee handbook limits WHY an employee might be terminated. Not one. They MAY define HOW an employee may be terminated, but not why. Therefor , a company COULD be fine with the procedure a supervisor used to terminate an employee while still disciplining that supervisor for firing an employee for a reason that HIS supervisors didn't agree with. In THOSE cases a company could both discipline a supervisor and argue that what he did was legal.

[fj1200]

Did you check the edit? Your VP testified under oath that they didn't follow their own procedures for termination.

Oh, and "legal" means jack.

[ConHog]

Did you check the edit? Your VP testified under oath that they didn't follow their own procedures for termination.

Oh, and "legal" means jack.

No. I had responded before you changed the scenario to fit your agenda based on the link you found. :laugh2:

Oh, and legal means EVERYTHING since my original assertion was that an employer could fire nearly any employee for nearly any reason. You are the one who had to start accusing my supervisor of acting illegally in order to make some sort of point.

[jimnyc]

If I were the "employer", I would ensure I made no verbal commitments and I simply wouldn't offer a handbook, therefore nothing to interpret as being wrong or right. There is no law that requires any employer to furnish handbooks to at will employees. Outside of a handbook rising to the level of an implied contract, you'd be hard pressed to find a way to support a wrongful termination without a law being broken. If I owned a company, no matter how large, I wouldn't give at will employees a chance to use my own handbook against me. But at the very least, don't cover termination proceedings and certainly don't cover anything about job commitment. Lastly, ensure the handbook states that the at will relationship still exists (as per case law above). Follow those easy tips, don't break the law when terminating employees, and you shouldn't lose any potential wrongful termination suit. And if someone like me could find easy tips to make sure my ass is covered, you can almost guarantee larger companies with attorneys on the payroll have likely taken even further steps to protect themselves.

Yes, there are exceptions, always are, but they're certainly in the slight minority when discussing at will employment.

[Shadow]

I don't get why a women would feel uncomfortable anyways? I mean I've never been in a women's changing room, but I imagine they're the same as men's. ie a walk way with a number of doors either side, containing a small room with a mirror, and ofcourse ones the door is closed and locked its *totally* private...so where's the problem?

Well...there obviously WAS a problem with the "totally private" dressing rooms...so much so, that Mr transgendered guy got a woman fired over it. So...you tell me what the big deal was?

[Dilloduck]

America is in the process of trying to please the weakest link in every chain which explains why we no longer are the top ranked country in the world in several categories. A long slow socialist revolution.

[Noir]

Well...there obviously WAS a problem with the "totally private" dressing rooms...so much so, that Mr transgendered guy got a woman fired over it. So...you tell me what the big deal was?

Yeah, there was a problem, and I have no idea why, given your get dressed/undressed in private it shouldn't matter of the person in the cubical next to you is man, women, or some random mix invetween.

[fj1200]

No. I had responded before you changed the scenario to fit your agenda based on the link you found. :laugh2:

No, I substantiated that not following standard procedure can lead to wrongful termination; You created the standard in post 37 and reiterated it in post 42.


Oh, and legal means EVERYTHING since my original assertion was that an employer could fire nearly any employee for nearly any reason. You are the one who had to start accusing my supervisor of acting illegally in order to make some sort of point.

Legal, and by that I assume you mean no specific statute that dictates the relationship between employer and employee, doesn't cure all deficient behavior by the employer. I've clearly established that there are exceptions to at-will employment. You're the one who stated that the supervisor was internally disciplined, I never stated he did something illegal.

[fj1200]

If I were the "employer", I would ensure I made no verbal commitments and I simply wouldn't offer a handbook, therefore nothing to interpret as being wrong or right.

Yes, there are exceptions, always are, but they're certainly in the slight minority when discussing at will employment.

The exceptions are the ones that get argued about and go to court. Overall I would guess that handbooks are more help than hindrance when you want to create the guidelines for how employees are expected to act/dress/etc. They just need to be written correctly so everyone knows their responsibilities.

[ConHog]

No, I substantiated that not following standard procedure can lead to wrongful termination; You created the standard in post 37 and reiterated it in post 42.



Legal, and by that I assume you mean no specific statute that dictates the relationship between employer and employee, doesn't cure all deficient behavior by the employer. I've clearly established that there are exceptions to at-will employment. You're the one who stated that the supervisor was internally disciplined, I never stated he did something illegal.

Yes you did, you stated that he fired her in a manner other than that listed in the employee handbook. By federal law you can't do that. You MUST follow your own written policy if you have one.

[jimnyc]

Yes you did, you stated that he fired her in a manner other than that listed in the employee handbook. By federal law you can't do that. You MUST follow your own written policy if you have one.

There is no such law. A handbook is, for the most part, a set of guidelines. Employers can legally ignore it whenever they please.

[fj1200]

Yes you did, you stated that he fired her in a manner other than that listed in the employee handbook. By federal law you can't do that. You MUST follow your own written policy if you have one.

Post number?

[ConHog]

There is no such law. A handbook is, for the most part, a set of guidelines. Employers can legally ignore it whenever they please.

'fraid you're wrong Jim

Statutory exceptions

Although all U.S. states have a number of statutory protections for employees, most wrongful termination suits brought under statutory causes of action use the federal anti-discrimination statutes which prohibit firing or refusing to hire an employee because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap status. Other reasons an employer may not use to fire an at-will employee are:

for refusing to commit illegal acts – An employer is not permitted to fire an employee because the employee refuses to commit an act that is illegal.
family or medical leave – federal law permits most employees to take a leave of absence for specific family or medical problems. An employer is not permitted to fire an employee who takes family or medical leave for a reason outlined in the Family and Medical Leave Act.
not following own termination procedures – often, the employee handbook or company policy outlines a procedure that must be followed before an employee is terminated. If the employer fires an employee without following this procedure, the employee may have a claim for wrongful termination.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

[logroller]

There is no such law. A handbook is, for the most part, a set of guidelines. Employers can legally ignore it whenever they please.

I disagree; a handbook is typically(read almost always) a contract that is legally binding for both parties, and states grounds for dismissal and the processes of doing so, including any guaranteed hours/compensation. I suspect, given the time of year, that contract also described the employee as extra/seasonal help--which is the essence of at-will employment-- meaning no guarantee exists beyond the minimums required by state law(eg. minimum hours per day worked).

I know someone offered forth the two week notice clause, and the reasoning for such is that schedules are often posted for two weeks ahead; if it is stipulated in the contract that a two week notice is required, both parties are obligated to honor that schedule. Meaning that if I put in two weeks notice, they can't cut my hours below whatever is guaranteed by state law and/or employment contract, which varies by state and employer. For example, at FedEx when I was there, casual/extra help=2 hrs/day scheduled(state law), part time= 12 hrs/wk(contract), full time= 24 hrs/wk(contract). So regardless of whether one is terminated or quits, one is guaranteed a minimum payout for scheduled hours, up to two-weeks wages, rather they work or not. Its not uncommon for employers to payout the entire two weeks to an employee who gives notice. However, seasonal/extra/casual help is not typically offered any such guarantee, other than some minimum number of hours for each day they come in- including the day they come in to get fired. That's why employers often fire people on their day off, or right before a schedule is posted-- else they'd have to pay you for the scheduled hours and/or would have worked on your last day, even if they fire you as soon as you come in. Damn the man.:laugh:

[jimnyc]

'fraid you're wrong Jim

Statutory exceptions

Although all U.S. states have a number of statutory protections for employees, most wrongful termination suits brought under statutory causes of action use the federal anti-discrimination statutes which prohibit firing or refusing to hire an employee because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap status. Other reasons an employer may not use to fire an at-will employee are:

for refusing to commit illegal acts – An employer is not permitted to fire an employee because the employee refuses to commit an act that is illegal.
family or medical leave – federal law permits most employees to take a leave of absence for specific family or medical problems. An employer is not permitted to fire an employee who takes family or medical leave for a reason outlined in the Family and Medical Leave Act.
not following own termination procedures – often, the employee handbook or company policy outlines a procedure that must be followed before an employee is terminated. If the employer fires an employee without following this procedure, the employee may have a claim for wrongful termination.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment


If it's a law - show me the actual code number, whether federal or state... I'll save you some time - it's NOT a law.

[jimnyc]

I disagree; a handbook is typically(read almost always) a contract that is legally binding for both parties, and states grounds for dismissal and the processes of doing so, including any guaranteed hours/compensation. I suspect, given the time of year, that contract also described the employee as extra/seasonal help--which is the essence of at-will employment-- meaning no guarantee exists beyond the minimums required by state law(eg. minimum hours per day worked).

I know someone offered forth the two week notice clause, and the reasoning for such is that schedules are often posted for two weeks ahead; if it is stipulated in the contract that a two week notice is required, both parties are obligated to honor that schedule. Meaning that if I put in two weeks notice, they can't cut my hours below whatever is guaranteed by state law and/or employment contract, which varies by state and employer. For example, at FedEx when I was there, casual/extra help=2 hrs/day scheduled(state law), part time= 12 hrs/wk(contract), full time= 24 hrs/wk(contract). So regardless of whether one is terminated or quits, one is guaranteed a minimum payout for scheduled hours, up to two-weeks wages, rather they work or not. Its not uncommon for employers to payout the entire two weeks to an employee who gives notice. However, seasonal/extra/casual help is not typically offered any such guarantee, other than some minimum number of hours for each day they come in- including the day they come in to get fired. That's why employers often fire people on their day off, or right before a schedule is posted-- else they'd have to pay you for the scheduled hours and/or would have worked on your last day, even if they fire you as soon as you come in. Damn the man.:laugh:

That's absolutely wrong and almost always the other way around. Very rarely does a handbook rise to the level of a contract.

[jimnyc]

Here's a decent read, unfortunately filled with ads - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1TOL/is_12/ai_n25019015/

Any medium to large sized companies won't make the mistake of wording a handbook as a contract. Most tiny companies won't have a handbook. So like I said, very rarely will you find a handbook turning into a contract between the employer/employee. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. But they are in an extremely small minority.

[fj1200]

'fraid you're wrong Jim

...

Where does that show him to be wrong about it being a law?


There is no such law. A handbook is, for the most part, a set of guidelines. Employers can legally ignore it whenever they please.

They can ignore at their peril.


Here's a decent read, unfortunately filled with ads - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1TOL/is_12/ai_n25019015/

Any medium to large sized companies won't make the mistake of wording a handbook as a contract. Most tiny companies won't have a handbook. So like I said, very rarely will you find a handbook turning into a contract between the employer/employee. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. But they are in an extremely small minority.

That article is filled with exceptions and case law to the handbook not being a contract. Even with copious disclaimers that it is not a contract it can be construed to be one if supervisors act contrary to it or if the company does not follow its own procedures. And yes those are exceptions but it's the exceptions that get decided in the courts.

[jimnyc]

They can ignore at their peril.

Maybe if their handbook outlines disciplinary procedures AND they specifically ignore a portion of that AND there is no disclaimer in the handbook AND the handbook meets all requirements of a contract - then it may be a perilous choice.


That article is filled with exceptions and case law to the handbook not being a contract. Even with copious disclaimers that it is not a contract it can be construed to be one if supervisors act contrary to it or if the company does not follow its own procedures. And yes those are exceptions but it's the exceptions that get decided in the courts.

Yes, exceptions to the norm. But the overwhelming majority of handbooks are not contracts, not even close. But yes, as I've stated numerous times, there are certainly exceptions. But even the exceptions are generally because of a lack of understanding by the company, and they made a mistake. Any competent company will ensure it doesn't equate to a contract. So again, which was my reply to logroller, the overwhelming majority of handbooks are NOT contracts.

[ConHog]

Maybe if their handbook outlines disciplinary procedures AND they specifically ignore a portion of that AND there is no disclaimer in the handbook AND the handbook meets all requirements of a contract - then it may be a perilous choice.



Yes, exceptions to the norm. But the overwhelming majority of handbooks are not contracts, not even close. But yes, as I've stated numerous times, there are certainly exceptions. But even the exceptions are generally because of a lack of understanding by the company, and they made a mistake. Any competent company will ensure it doesn't equate to a contract. So again, which was my reply to logroller, the overwhelming majority of handbooks are NOT contracts.

Employee handbooks are in fact considered to be implied contracts. And the law in many cases treats implied contracts as actual contracts.

[jimnyc]

Employee handbooks are in fact considered to be implied contracts. And the law in many cases treats implied contracts as actual contracts.

Only a very small amount of handbooks rise to the level of a contract. Did you read what I posted earlier about implied contracts? Have you read the link we discussed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule. But the overwhelming majority of handbooks don't make a contract. The overwhelming majority of things in a handbook can be outright ignored at any time by the employer, without liability. Yes, I'm aware there are exceptions, but they are few and far between.

[ConHog]

Only a very small amount of handbooks rise to the level of a contract. Did you read what I posted earlier about implied contracts? Have you read the link we discussed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule. But the overwhelming majority of handbooks don't make a contract. The overwhelming majority of things in a handbook can be outright ignored at any time by the employer, without liability. Yes, I'm aware there are exceptions, but they are few and far between.

What you say is true in some respects, but not when it comes to firing an employee. IF you have a written policy and it isn't followed , then that employee might have a wrongful termination suit. Now of course that raises the obvious fact that the legal department in most companies is going to know that and not include a termination procedure in their handbooks.

[logroller]

That's absolutely wrong and almost always the other way around. Very rarely does a handbook rise to the level of a contract.

I was thinking of the letter of hire.

[logroller]

Where does that show him to be wrong about it being a law?



They can ignore at their peril.



That article is filled with exceptions and case law to the handbook not being a contract. Even with copious disclaimers that it is not a contract it can be construed to be one if supervisors act contrary to it or if the company does not follow its own procedures. And yes those are exceptions but it's the exceptions that get decided in the courts.

or through arbitration, per the handbook.:coffee:

[fj1200]

Maybe if ... AND ... AND ... AND ... - then it may be a perilous choice.

..., and they made a mistake. Any competent company will ensure it doesn't equate to a contract. So again, which was my reply to logroller, the overwhelming majority of handbooks are NOT contracts.

It doesn't require all of those "AND"s to meet the perilous choice. The handbook and/or other company documents and/or supervisory actions and/or etc. can all create a standard that can bite them; even if the handbook is not a "contract." You seem to have a lot of faith in competent companies and their legal department. I'm sure that they're getting better but the court drift is to more exceptions as well.

[jimnyc]

What you say is true in some respects, but not when it comes to firing an employee. IF you have a written policy and it isn't followed , then that employee might have a wrongful termination suit. Now of course that raises the obvious fact that the legal department in most companies is going to know that and not include a termination procedure in their handbooks.

What I stated is true in the majority, not some. If it wasn't, then "at will" would be a term that is non-existent. What you just now wrote is absolutely correct, but winning wrongful termination suits based on handbooks are very few and far between.


I was thinking of the letter of hire.

Also not a contract (with a few exceptions). This is simply an offer that can generally be retracted by an employer at anytime without liability. The terms generally in an offer letter are usually a starting salary and a start date. In very rare cases, if the employer decides not to hire someone after the fact, they can be sued for "Promissory Estoppel". But as in the handbook scenario, the letter would have to be worded in a manner to be a contract, which is rare. As discussed with other scenarios, of course there are exceptions, but generally speaking an offer letter, or letter to hire, is not a contract.


It doesn't require all of those "AND"s to meet the perilous choice. The handbook and/or other company documents and/or supervisory actions and/or etc. can all create a standard that can bite them; even if the handbook is not a "contract." You seem to have a lot of faith in competent companies and their legal department. I'm sure that they're getting better but the court drift is to more exceptions as well.

There are always "exceptions" and scenarios where a contract comes into play and an employer can be bit in the ass. My point all along is that these cases are rare, and in most cases a handbook is more or less a guide and won't rise to the level of a contract. Many companies nowadays just don't cover termination policies for just that reason.

[ConHog]

What I stated is true in the majority, not some. If it wasn't, then "at will" would be a term that is non-existent. What you just now wrote is absolutely correct, but winning wrongful termination suits based on handbooks are very few and far between.



Also not a contract (with a few exceptions). This is simply an offer that can generally be retracted by an employer at anytime without liability. The terms generally in an offer letter are usually a starting salary and a start date. In very rare cases, if the employer decides not to hire someone after the fact, they can be sued for "Promissory Estoppel". But as in the handbook scenario, the letter would have to be worded in a manner to be a contract, which is rare. As discussed with other scenarios, of course there are exceptions, but generally speaking an offer letter, or letter to hire, is not a contract.



There are always "exceptions" and scenarios where a contract comes into play and an employer can be bit in the ass. My point all along is that these cases are rare, and in most cases a handbook is more or less a guide and won't rise to the level of a contract. Many companies nowadays just don't cover termination policies for just that reason.


Correct, b/c most corporations have legal departments smart enough to veto putting any sort of firing process in writing. BUT if it is there, then it better be followed. That was my only point.

[jimnyc]

Correct, b/c most corporations have legal departments smart enough to veto putting any sort of firing process in writing. BUT if it is there, then it better be followed. That was my only point.

I'll agree with that. But like FJ stated, there are companies who do in fact word their handbooks in a manner that can be costly to them, as they can with hiring letters, as logroller pointed out. I'd like to think that medium to large sized businesses would have this area covered for liability reasons, but that's not always the case. But like I said, generally, as in the majority of times, the at will relationship remains throughout the term of employment and either can part ways at any time without liability or recourse.

[logroller]

Respective of the OP, and as a disclaimer ;), somebody working retail is a far different class of employee than a trained and/or experienced professional. It would make sense that it varies by job, but in an effort to attract and retain well-qualified employees, certain perks are granted at the discretion of the employer in their own interests of competitive advantage and profitability, and whether or not contractual obligations exist, they still must be uniform in application, ie non-discriminatory per Civil Rights laws, race creed age sex etc. Not just for legal reasons, but also for functional ones; as a disgruntled workforce is rarely as productive as a content one; worst case scenario, they unionize, and such perks are collectively bargained and would become contractual obligations.

[ConHog]

Respective of the OP, and as a disclaimer ;), somebody working retail is a far different class of employee than a trained and/or experienced professional. It would make sense that it varies by job, but in an effort to attract and retain well-qualified employees, certain perks are granted at the discretion of the employer in their own interests of competitive advantage and profitability, and whether or not contractual obligations exist, they still must be uniform in application, ie non-discriminatory per Civil Rights laws, race creed age sex etc. Not just for legal reasons, but also for functional ones; as a disgruntled workforce is rarely as productive as a content one; worst case scenario, they unionize, and such perks are collectively bargained and would become contractual obligations.

Very true. Rarely do you see hourly workers have jobs that guarantee them anything more than pay for the hours they work.

[Gunny]

A Texas woman claims she was fired from her job at Macy’s for telling a transgender customer that she could not change in the women’s dressing room, according to ABC News’ San Antonio affiliate KSAT. (http://www.ksat.com/news/Macy-s-employee-fired-after-violating-company-s-LGBT-policy/-/478452/4896064/-/133oi6u/-/)
The woman, Natalie Johnson, has filed a complaint with the Federal Employment Commission, saying that her religious beliefs prevent her from recognizing transgender people, according to KSAT.
Johnson, 27, was employed at the River Center Macy’s in San Antonio until last week. She said a teenager caught her attention because the teen was shopping for women’s clothing, but Johnson was convinced the shopper was male.
When Johnson spotted the teenager in the women’s dressing area, Johnson told her she could not change there.
“I had to just be straightforward and tell him, ‘You’re a man,’ and of course that … really got him steamed,” Johnson told KSAT. (http://www.ksat.com/news/Macy-s-employee-fired-after-violating-company-s-LGBT-policy/-/478452/4896064/-/133oi6u/-/)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/12/texas-macys-employee-fired-for-allegedly-violating-stores-lgbt-policy/

And? It's a man, no matter what it wants to claim it is. I got a better name for transgenders and who needs them in San Antonio?

[ConHog]

And? It's a man, no matter what it wants to claim it is. I got a better name for transgenders and who needs them in San Antonio?



I'm fairly certain I've never actually seen a 'transgender" in real life , and my life is all the better for it.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm fairly certain I've never actually seen a 'transgender" in real life , and my life is all the better for it.

OT alert: I haven't been aware of seeing a transgender either, but I have seen a transvestite hooker up close once in court. It was when I had an internship in the Manahattan DA's office. Along with his heels, and a ton of makeup, he had on very short, very tight, very thin shorts, and I try as I might, I couldn't see his junk, lol. I thought it was a woman. The DA I was working with told me they tape it all down so the "customers" can't see it.

[ConHog]

OT alert: I haven't been aware of seeing a transgender either, but I have seen a transvestite hooker up close once in court. It was when I had an internship in the Manahattan DA's office. Along with his heels, and a ton of makeup, he had on very short, very tight, very thin shorts, and I try as I might, I couldn't see his junk, lol. I thought it was a woman. The DA I was working with told me they tape it all down so the "customers" can't see it.

there isn't enough money in the world for me to put tape on my junk.

For real we have a fairly decent sized gay population not too far from us, but I don't think I've ever seen a trannie in that town even.

[Shadow]

And? It's a man, no matter what it wants to claim it is. I got a better name for transgenders and who needs them in San Antonio?

And...I think the store policy is stupid. Their dressing rooms are totally private,and if the women are expected to be comfortable sharing space with a man (even if he is dressed as/relates to other woman) then the man should damn well be expected to be just as "comfortable" sharing space with other men without throwing a hissy fit. I'm sick of this PC everyone should accomodate the minority because they are "sensitive" bullshit.