Wrongful termination after turning in child molester.

[50q's]

You will when under the case of retaliation if you can prove that the write up were false. if you can show a strong performance before you reported the petifile and show that soon after the case you could sue for retaliation. you need records of your work performance before and after the case.

 

[RDJ]

You will when under the case of retaliation if you can prove that the write up were false. if you can show a strong performance before you reported the petifile and show that soon after the case you could sue for retaliation. you need records of your work performance before and after the case.

So from this post I gather the following:

1. English is not you first language
2. You are not a lawyer

 

[50q's]

First phuckstick you post way to much. Second if you would like to know I am studying employment law right now and know retaliation cases pretty well. He has to show a work performance before hand. If he has no write ups before all of this happened and can prove once he did turn him in the write ups began he would have a strong case. If he is hired under employment at will and had been written up in the past more than once then they have a strong case just to fire him before of poor work performance. anything else you would like to add? He must first show a strong prima facia case in order to even move to a judgement. It all depends on his work performance before the claim. If he has a poor work performance then the business would have a very strong case, if no write up occured before then he has the stronger case. typically they will settle for the employee because of eeoc backing.

 

[50q's]

No jumping to conclusions needed. When you say "next time keep your mouth shut and mind your own business". How else is that to be interpreted? As I said in my post to the op which you apparently either failed to read or comprehend. That MIGHT not be what you meant but that is certainly what you said. Good backtrack tho. Next time be more careful in how you express your stupid.

Are you just stupid or arrogant. I can't really figure it out. All I can see is you trying to actually prove your smarter than everyone else posting.

 

[Black*Death]

First phuckstick you post way to much. Second if you would like to know I am studying employment law right now and know retaliation cases pretty well. He has to show a work performance before hand. If he has no write ups before all of this happened and can prove once he did turn him in the write ups began he would have a strong case. If he is hired under employment at will and had been written up in the past more than once then they have a strong case just to fire him before of poor work performance. anything else you would like to add? He must first show a strong prima facia case in order to even move to a judgement. It all depends on his work performance before the claim. If he has a poor work performance then the business would have a very strong case, if no write up occured before then he has the stronger case. typically they will settle for the employee because of eeoc backing.

Not sure they give raises to screw-ups as OP stated he received a raise just prior to this incident.

Great job OP.....I would go after the dealership like you are doing to simply teach them a lesson about wrongfully terminating someone who reported a crime.

 

[50q's]

His case is even stronger if he received a raise before hand. The better work performance he can show before hand the stronger his case.

 

[FordSVTFan]

First phuckstick you post way to much. Second if you would like to know I am studying employment law right now and know retaliation cases pretty well. He has to show a work performance before hand. If he has no write ups before all of this happened and can prove once he did turn him in the write ups began he would have a strong case. If he is hired under employment at will and had been written up in the past more than once then they have a strong case just to fire him before of poor work performance. anything else you would like to add? He must first show a strong prima facia case in order to even move to a judgement. It all depends on his work performance before the claim. If he has a poor work performance then the business would have a very strong case, if no write up occured before then he has the stronger case. typically they will settle for the employee because of eeoc backing.

You are not in law school, there is no way possible considering you dont understand the proofs required for a retaliatory firing. You cant even spell "judgment."

 

[FordSVTFan]

His case is even stronger if he received a raise before hand. The better work performance he can show before hand the stronger his case.

Except he didnt report or do anything directly against the business.

 

[50q's]

its not whistleblower case its retaliation.

 

[50q's]

You are not in law school, there is no way possible considering you dont understand the proofs required for a retaliatory firing. You cant even spell "judgment."

First I said employment law, not Law School. You read between the lines.

 

[FordSVTFan]

First I said employment law, not Law School. You read between the lines.

law is studied in law school. Employment law requires a person to have studied and understood the principles of con law, contract, and property.

Reading between the lines tells me you took some half assed undergrad course that barely scratches the surface.

 

[RDJ]

Are you just stupid or arrogant. I can't really figure it out. All I can see is you trying to actually prove your smarter than everyone else posting.

I will start with this lame assertion and respond to your earlier insults separately. I am neither stupid nor arrogant. I am factual. my saying what you quoted has nothing to do with either, it also has nothing to do with being smart. It is an observation made based on the words HE wrote. why you are offended at that is beyond me. you are 21 years old, still in school and are the one trying to show you are smarter than anyone else. Highly recommend you step back and take another look. you might spend some time reading the rules regarding insults outside of smackdown and circumvention of the obscenity filter. I made sure to spell those correctly so that as you learn to use the search feature they will actually show up in your search.

 

[ModularFan]

After reading into this more, something tells me the OP was setup. they knew he was the quiet one around the work place and they wanted to see if he'd break the silence or too see if they can get anything out of him. I believe thats why this co-worker dumped the story on him, so that would give his co-worker buddies a reason to shaft him, because they knew the OP would say something and they made the OP look like the asshole unfortunately costing the op his job.

This is one of the reasons why I keep my mouth shut at work anymore, I don't get involved with anyones business i simply tell them, I don't want to hear it and its none of my business. I know have been working close to 5 months at my new job, and I will continue to be the way I am, because Its not worth losing my job over someone elses bs. just saying.

 

[RDJ]

First phuckstick you post way to much.

what business is it of yours how much I post? oh wait I can answer that myself ... can we say NONE. and nice circumvention of the obscenity filter.

Second if you would like to know I am studying employment law right now and know retaliation cases pretty well.

so I was correct you are not a lawyer. at what school are you studying? what credentials do you have besides your BS or BA? and what experience do you have in actually litigating retaliation cases?

He has to show a work performance before hand. If he has no write ups before all of this happened and can prove once he did turn him in the write ups began he would have a strong case. If he is hired under employment at will and had been written up in the past more than once then they have a strong case just to fire him before of poor work performance. anything else you would like to add? He must first show a strong prima facia case in order to even move to a judgement. It all depends on his work performance before the claim. If he has a poor work performance then the business would have a very strong case, if no write up occured before then he has the stronger case. typically they will settle for the employee because of eeoc backing.

who's arguing this? while some of it is probably valid it has nothing to do with what I stated. I will leave it to Adam to argue the finer points of the law. I will say this ... you either took a quick Rosetta Stone class in English or you paid more attention to your writing this time.

 

[RDJ]

After reading into this more, something tells me the OP was setup. they knew he was the quiet one around the work place and they wanted to see if he'd break the silence or too see if they can get anything out of him. I believe thats why this co-worker dumped the story on him, so that would give his co-worker buddies a reason to shaft him, because they knew the OP would say something and they made the OP look like the asshole unfortunately costing the op his job.

This is one of the reasons why I keep my mouth shut at work anymore, I don't get involved with anyones business i simply tell them, I don't want to hear it and its none of my business. I know have been working close to 5 months at my new job, and I will continue to be the way I am, because Its not worth losing my job over someone elses bs. just saying.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: a conspiricy really? if that were true and they "set him up" the charges would have been dropped or dismissed. What pedophile would sacrifice himself just to set some kid where he works up?

I am sure planter is happy to know there is at least one more person that would allow a pedophile to continue operating unchallenged just because someone didn't want to get invooved.

 

[rust0r]

Unfortunately I have no legal advice, however I would like to commend you on doing something that many would not have the courage to do. Because of you his kids are safe and heading towards what we can only hope is a better environment.

People like you show me that there is still some good out there. Hopefully you land back on your feet with a job quickly and receive a nice settlement.

Best of luck,

 

[ModularFan]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: a conspiricy really? if that were true and they "set him up" the charges would have been dropped or dismissed. What pedophile would sacrifice himself just to set some kid where he works up?

I am sure planter is happy to know there is at least one more person that would allow a pedophile to continue operating unchallenged just because someone didn't want to get invooved.

No, I never said it was a conspiricy, I simply said the co-worker knew the OP was quite so he decided to tell him, so the rest of the mechanics can stick it to him.

 

[RDJ]

No, I never said it was a conspiricy, I simply said the co-worker knew the OP was quite so he decided to tell him, so the rest of the mechanics can stick it to him.

that makes a conspiricy dude. and back to my original question, what pedophile is going to put his freedom on the line just so they can stick it to some poor schmuk they don't like?

 

[50q's]

law is studied in law school. Employment law requires a person to have studied and understood the principles of con law, contract, and property.

Reading between the lines tells me you took some half assed undergrad course that barely scratches the surface.

I would have to say me scratching the surface is more than you would know. Employment law is its own form of law; has very little if nothing to do with property. BTW you cursed maybe you should send yourself a warning, sweetheart. Follow your own rules buddy.

 

[50q's]

what business is it of yours how much I post? oh wait I can answer that myself ... can we say NONE. and nice circumvention of the obscenity filter.
so I was correct you are not a lawyer. at what school are you studying? what credentials do you have besides your BS or BA? and what experience do you have in actually litigating retaliation cases?
who's arguing this? while some of it is probably valid it has nothing to do with what I stated. I will leave it to Adam to argue the finer points of the law. I will say this ... you either took a quick Rosetta Stone class in English or you paid more attention to your writing this time.

Sorry grammar police. Maybe next time I will focus on both. Thanks for saying I have a valid argument. Now get back to the keyboard so you feel big poking fun at others.