Ohio woman claims voting for Obama got her fired

[red states rule]

I do not believe she has a case. Unless you have contract employment is "at will" and your employer can fire you at any time for any reason

Given the Obama economy I am not surprised more workers are being let go. I suspect this women is pissed at losing her job and looking for someone to blame

Just like Obama has done for the last 4 years





A southwest Ohio woman who says she was fired because she voted for President Barack Obama filed a lawsuit against her former employer.

Patricia Kunkle's lawsuit accuses Dayton-based defense contractor Q-Mark Inc. and its president of telling employees that if Obama was re-elected, then his supporters would be the first to be fired, The Dayton Daily News (http://bit.ly/YxE10A)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png reported.

Brian Wildermuth, an attorney for the company president, said in a statement that Kunkle was laid off for economic reasons -- "nothing more."

"I am sure you and your readers are familiar with the ongoing uncertainties regarding defense spending, and thus the economic environment confronting defense contractors," he said. "The allegation that Q-Mark discharged Ms. Kunkle because of her vote is simply false."

Kunkle, of Kettering, has an unlisted phone number and her Dayton attorney didn't immediately respond to a request to speak with her.

The lawsuit, filed in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court on Feb. 14, seeks a minimum of $25,000. It says that Kunkle's vote came up in conversation on Nov. 7, the day after the election, and that she was fired Nov. 9. The suit claims that the company's president and owner, Roberta Gentile, said the firing was in the "best interest of the company."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/21/ohio-woman-claims-was-fired-for-obama-vote/?test=latestnews#ixzz2LaEfijlL

[PostmodernProphet]

is being a liberal a protected class?......I suppose she could allege she worships Obama and this is an infringement of her religious rights.....

[taft2012]

A logical extension of the "I got fired because I'm black" lawsuit, we now have the "I got fired because I voted black" lawsuit.

Wasn't electing our first black president supposed to rectify this BS?

[glockmail]

The Obama is a racist, so no, electing a racist won't lower the instances of racism.

[Voted4Reagan]

i wonder how much her companies health insurance costs increased with the implementation of OBAMA-CARE as it affects companies with more then 50 employees.

yup.... Economic reasons sure sound like the culprit.

Woman got what she voted for.....

CHANGE...... in her employment status

[tailfins]

There's no way she could have been fired for how she voted, the US has a secret ballot. The company would have no way of REALLY knowing how she voted. Talking about politics on company time is another discussion.

[fj1200]

I do not believe she has a case. Unless you have contract employment is "at will" and your employer can fire you at any time for any reason

Not really, but...


is being a liberal a protected class?...

Although they would like that.


i wonder how much her companies health insurance costs increased with the implementation of OBAMA-CARE as it affects companies with more then 50 employees.

I would be shocked if a defense contractor doesn't already offer insurance as part of the benefits package. And defense cutbacks are far more likely to affect them than ACA.

[Voted4Reagan]

I would be shocked if a defense contractor doesn't already offer insurance as part of the benefits package. And defense cutbacks are far more likely to affect them than ACA.

http://www.obamacarewatch.org/primer/employer-mandate

The Employer Mandate

ObamaCare’s employer mandate is among the new laws most anti-growth provisions. When implemented, it will force most American businesses to offer government-approved health insurance to their employees or else pay new federal taxes for not doing so. This costly new requirement will make it more expensive for firms to hire workers in the future. Consequently, it will destroy jobs, and many firms are likely to slow down on hiring in anticipation of its implementation.


“Free-Rider” Provision
ObamaCare does not impose a straight-forward requirement that employers offer health insurance to workers. Proponents of the new law wanted to avoid the charge that the new law was directly imposing new costs on American business. So, instead, they created a back-door mandate, what they call the “free-rider” provision.
If a firm with at least 50 workers has a full-time employee who is getting federally-subsided insurance through an ”exchange,” then that employer must pay a penalty for failing to offer that worker acceptable insurance on the job. (Workers that are offered qualified coverage by an employer are ineligible for the new insurance subsidies provided in the exchanges.)
The tax is scheduled to begin in 2014 and the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will bring in approximately $10 billion in annual revenue once it’s fully implemented.


Penalties For Failure To Insure


For firms which do not offer insurance any insurance, have more than 50 employees, and have at least one employee receiving insurance subsidies, they must pay a tax of $2000 per subsidized employee. The tax is applied to all of a firm’s employees (after excluding the first 30), not just those that are subsidized. For example a firm with 51 employees would pay $42,000 in new annual taxes, and an additional $2,000 tax for every new hire.
For firms that do offer insurance, the penalty is the lesser of $2,000 for every employee (after exempting the first 30) or $3,000) for every employee receiving a subsidy.
The National Federation of Independent Business has a clear and informative table which examines the taxes assessed under different scenarios here (http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/AllUsers/Free%20Rider%20Provision.pdf).



Disincentives to Hire
ObamaCare’s employer mandate will discourage business development and growth. Small firms with 50 or fewer workers will have very strong disincentives to expand. These businesses can avoid the new penalties by staying small; growth will simply add new costs and burdens. Many businesses with low profit margins are unable to pay the substantial cost of providing comprehensive insurance to all of their employees or the new taxes under ObamaCare’s employer mandate. Once companies reach 50 employees, they are likely to turn to contractors and outsource work to evade the new mandate, even if such arrangements are less efficient than directly hiring new workers.


Part-Time and Seasonal Employees
Fines to employers under the employer mandate also are imposed on workers who are not full-time employees, where a combination of employees working 120 hours per month (around 30 hours per week) count as one employee. This provision in the bill especially hurts seasonal businesses, where it is frequently not cost effective to provide insurance benefits to an employee who will only be with the firm for a short period of time.



Penalizing Low Income Households


ObamaCare provides strong incentives for firms to avoid hiring workers from low-income households. Eligibility for subsidized insurance in the exchanges is based on household income, and firms can be penalized if one of their workers gets subsidized coverage in an exchange. Thus, firms have a strong incentive to find workers who won’t qualify for subsidized coverage, which may also lead to invasions of privacy. For instance, a restaurant might find it better to hire young waiters from upper-income neighborhoods, as opposed to low-income areas, because they would be less likely to qualify for subsidized insurance in the exchanges. ObamaCare therefore is penalizing the very households it was supposedly passed to help.

[jimnyc]

Not really, but...

An employer, in an at will state, can fire an employee for any reason, so long as that reason is not illegal. That's the extreme overwhelming majority of cases in at will. Of course there are a few here or there for a few reasons that don't fit that mold. But, for example, if you work at a typical company, you're at will, have no contract - an employer CAN legally fire you for voting for someone they don't like. Of course one always has the right to sue, but without much of a leg to stand on, they might end up with attorney fees on top of their unemployment.

[fj1200]

http://www.obamacarewatch.org/primer/employer-mandate

Penalties For Failure To Insure

For firms which do not offer insurance any insurance...

And? As I said, I'd be shocked if that firm didn't already offer health insurance. Besides, the article's stated reasons were defense related not ACA.


An employer, in an at will state, can fire an employee for any reason...

We've had this discussion before, there are plenty of exceptions to at-will. I just hope that they dotted their i's here.

[jimnyc]

We've had this discussion before, there are plenty of exceptions to at-will. I just hope that they dotted their i's here.

I know I did, that's why I poked you to annoy you :poke:

I would define "plenty" as very little, as there really are very little exceptions to at-will in total. But yes, I do agree that sometimes there are contracts, and of course the aforementioned illegal maneuvers.

[fj1200]

I know I did, that's why I poked you to annoy you :poke:

I would define "plenty" as very little, as there really are very little exceptions to at-will in total. But yes, I do agree that sometimes there are contracts, and of course the aforementioned illegal maneuvers.

"Plenty" as in enough to keep employers honest from doing dumb things. Namely telling people that they would be fired due to their POTUS vote. :poke:

[jimnyc]

"Plenty" as in enough to keep employers honest from doing dumb things. Namely telling people that they would be fired due to their POTUS vote. :poke:

Why would canning someone due to their vote be illegal? If this person made it clear that they voted for Obama, and the employer didn't like that, I don't know of any law that would forbid that? I ask that truly as I don't know of a law, but could be wrong. Certainly no discrimination as none of that is a protected characteristic that I know of either.

[fj1200]

Why would canning someone due to their vote be illegal? If this person made it clear that they voted for Obama, and the employer didn't like that, I don't know of any law that would forbid that? I ask that truly as I don't know of a law, but could be wrong. Certainly no discrimination as none of that is a protected characteristic that I know of either.

I didn't say illegal, I said dumb. You're just giving someone a reason to make a claim that you need to defend against. Besides, it seems like a long time between firing and filing the suit. I wonder if she was given severance or anything where she would need to sign away her right to sue.

[jimnyc]

I didn't say illegal, I said dumb. You're just giving someone a reason to make a claim that you need to defend against. Besides, it seems like a long time between firing and filing the suit. I wonder if she was given severance or anything where she would need to sign away her right to sue.

Oh, that I agree with, I've seen people sue for a lot less. And yep again, that's how a lot of companies deal with preventing such troubles, dangle a few $$ and have them sign away. It's cheaper than defending a crappy suit sometimes.

[aboutime]

Based on the number of people who are UNEMPLOYED, and WITHOUT JOBS.

It's a wonder ANYONE with a Job was dumb enough to vote for Obama in the first place.

Bragging about voting for Obama to your boss was probably her intent for getting out of work.

But then. Maybe she'd make out better WITHOUT a job...since it pays MORE to be Unemployed according to Obama standards.

[avatar4321]

Alot of people got fired because she voted for Obama. They should be suing her.

[aboutime]

Alot of people got fired because she voted for Obama. They should be suing her.


avatar. Well said, and thought-out. Bet you managed to confuse a few people even more than they already were.

[Robert A Whit]

An employer, in an at will state, can fire an employee for any reason, so long as that reason is not illegal. That's the extreme overwhelming majority of cases in at will. Of course there are a few here or there for a few reasons that don't fit that mold. But, for example, if you work at a typical company, you're at will, have no contract - an employer CAN legally fire you for voting for someone they don't like. Of course one always has the right to sue, but without much of a leg to stand on, they might end up with attorney fees on top of their unemployment.

This employee is a recent hire. It is normal to lay off the last to be hired workers. It happened to me many times when I worked for companies.

[aboutime]

"Plenty" as in enough to keep employers honest from doing dumb things. Namely telling people that they would be fired due to their POTUS vote. :poke:


It happens frequently enough in places where the Union bosses demand their members vote for assigned candidates. So, the same kinds of things can, and do take place in RIGHT TO WORK STATES as well.
Unlike the Untouchable Union workers who normally can't be fired. Right to work states can fire anyone they want, if only because they wear their hair wrong, smoke, drink, or have DUI's that cause low product work at the workplace.

[mundame]

There's no way she could have been fired for how she voted, the US has a secret ballot. The company would have no way of REALLY knowing how she voted. Talking about politics on company time is another discussion.

That's what happened, of course. She's obnoxious in discussing politics.

Her boss gets to fire her for ANY reason: that's the law.

So much for her.

[red states rule]

If owned my own business I probably would fire anyone who I knew voted for Obama and had a Obama bumper sticker on their car

The polices coming from DC are a business killer and I would not want anyone who agreed with those policies to work for me.

[fj1200]

It happens frequently enough in places where the Union bosses demand their members vote for assigned candidates. So, the same kinds of things can, and do take place in RIGHT TO WORK STATES as well.
Unlike the Untouchable Union workers who normally can't be fired. Right to work states can fire anyone they want, if only because they wear their hair wrong, smoke, drink, or have DUI's that cause low product work at the workplace.

There are exceptions.

[logroller]

http://www.obamacarewatch.org/primer/employer-mandate

The Employer Mandate

ObamaCare’s employer mandate is among the new laws most anti-growth provisions. When implemented, it will force most American businesses to offer government-approved health insurance to their employees or else pay new federal taxes for not doing so. This costly new requirement will make it more expensive for firms to hire workers in the future. Consequently, it will destroy jobs, and many firms are likely to slow down on hiring in anticipation of its implementation.


“Free-Rider” Provision
ObamaCare does not impose a straight-forward requirement that employers offer health insurance to workers. Proponents of the new law wanted to avoid the charge that the new law was directly imposing new costs on American business. So, instead, they created a back-door mandate, what they call the “free-rider” provision.
If a firm with at least 50 workers has a full-time employee who is getting federally-subsided insurance through an ”exchange,” then that employer must pay a penalty for failing to offer that worker acceptable insurance on the job. (Workers that are offered qualified coverage by an employer are ineligible for the new insurance subsidies provided in the exchanges.)
The tax is scheduled to begin in 2014 and the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will bring in approximately $10 billion in annual revenue once it’s fully implemented.


Penalties For Failure To Insure


For firms which do not offer insurance any insurance, have more than 50 employees, and have at least one employee receiving insurance subsidies, they must pay a tax of $2000 per subsidized employee. The tax is applied to all of a firm’s employees (after excluding the first 30), not just those that are subsidized. For example a firm with 51 employees would pay $42,000 in new annual taxes, and an additional $2,000 tax for every new hire.
For firms that do offer insurance, the penalty is the lesser of $2,000 for every employee (after exempting the first 30) or $3,000) for every employee receiving a subsidy.
The National Federation of Independent Business has a clear and informative table which examines the taxes assessed under different scenarios here (http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/AllUsers/Free%20Rider%20Provision.pdf).



Disincentives to Hire
ObamaCare’s employer mandate will discourage business development and growth. Small firms with 50 or fewer workers will have very strong disincentives to expand. These businesses can avoid the new penalties by staying small; growth will simply add new costs and burdens. Many businesses with low profit margins are unable to pay the substantial cost of providing comprehensive insurance to all of their employees or the new taxes under ObamaCare’s employer mandate. Once companies reach 50 employees, they are likely to turn to contractors and outsource work to evade the new mandate, even if such arrangements are less efficient than directly hiring new workers.


Part-Time and Seasonal Employees
Fines to employers under the employer mandate also are imposed on workers who are not full-time employees, where a combination of employees working 120 hours per month (around 30 hours per week) count as one employee. This provision in the bill especially hurts seasonal businesses, where it is frequently not cost effective to provide insurance benefits to an employee who will only be with the firm for a short period of time.



Penalizing Low Income Households


ObamaCare provides strong incentives for firms to avoid hiring workers from low-income households. Eligibility for subsidized insurance in the exchanges is based on household income, and firms can be penalized if one of their workers gets subsidized coverage in an exchange. Thus, firms have a strong incentive to find workers who won’t qualify for subsidized coverage, which may also lead to invasions of privacy. For instance, a restaurant might find it better to hire young waiters from upper-income neighborhoods, as opposed to low-income areas, because they would be less likely to qualify for subsidized insurance in the exchanges. ObamaCare therefore is penalizing the very households it was supposedly passed to help.
When you don't even reference the law properly, there's little incentive to afford your findings any weight.

Why would canning someone due to their vote be illegal? If this person made it clear that they voted for Obama, and the employer didn't like that, I don't know of any law that would forbid that? I ask that truly as I don't know of a law, but could be wrong. Certainly no discrimination as none of that is a protected characteristic that I know of either.

Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Public Policy
A legal claim that an employee has been illegally fired for reasons that most people would find morally or ethically repugnant. In many states, for example, an employee can sue for wrongful termination in violation of public policy after being fired for (1) exercising a legal right, such as voting, (2) refusing to do something illegal, such as submitting false tax returns or lying on reports the employer is required to submit to the government, or (3) reporting illegal conduct.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/wrongful_termination

[aboutime]

When you don't even reference the law properly, there's little incentive to afford your findings any weight.


Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Public Policy
A legal claim that an employee has been illegally fired for reasons that most people would find morally or ethically repugnant. In many states, for example, an employee can sue for wrongful termination in violation of public policy after being fired for (1) exercising a legal right, such as voting, (2) refusing to do something illegal, such as submitting false tax returns or lying on reports the employer is required to submit to the government, or (3) reporting illegal conduct.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/wrongful_termination


More FUNNY stuff.

[Robert A Whit]

That's what happened, of course. She's obnoxious in discussing politics.

Her boss gets to fire her for ANY reason: that's the law.

So much for her.

There have long been laws to protect workers from being fired.

I want to propose what actually took place.

She got laid off.

When a company lays you off because they are cutting back, no law can force a company to keep you.

The burden of proof is not on the company, it is on her.

She must prove beyond doubt that the company used a reason, cited by law, to remove her from their employ.

A good course to take if you hire workers is one on effective managing.

[Robert A Whit]

If owned my own business I probably would fire anyone who I knew voted for Obama and had a Obama bumper sticker on their car

The polices coming from DC are a business killer and I would not want anyone who agreed with those policies to work for me.

If this woman spent time at work, during working hours, campaigning for Obama, she violated the agreement she made when hired.

I may be wrong but I believe that the company said they no longer needed her services. I expect this to be their defense. Has anyone seen the reply by the company?

[Robert A Whit]

Look the company up. I thought the article called them a defense contractor.

They are a sales force and sell electronics.

Mislead by the left wing media once again.

http://www.q-markrep.com/