Posted on 07/14/2015 12:46:19 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
An Iraq war service member wounded in combat was fired by Roto Rooter in Plymouth rather than kept on and accommodated for his battle-related injuries upon his return to the United States, according to a federal agreement that requires the company to pay $100,000 to the veteran.
In a conciliation agreement signed Friday by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Roto Rooter Services, of Plymouth, the company must pay $100,000 to settle disability discrimination charges for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
“Firing a war veteran for his disabilities incurred serving his country is just plain wrong and clearly violates federal law,” said Julianne Bowman, director of the EEOC’s Chicago district.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Aw, crap, you beat me to it!
A couple of thoughts here. First, veteran or no, why is a company obligated to keep paying someone who cannot perform his job because of a disability. I understand it is the law, but the law is socialist garbage. Second, does the $100,000 go to the complainant or to the Feds?
The only “tell” from this article was the word Chicago.
Well, shut my mouth. They didn’t even bother to give the guy’s name.
Who said he was unable to perform his job?
You bring up the same questions I do - and PLEASE don’t anybody take this as me having anything against veterans... disabled or otherwise...
But why is it somehow wrong to end the employment of an employee who cannot do the job for which they were hired? Obviously, it would be a kind thing to do to find some other position for which he CAN do the job successfully - but what if there are not positions available?
One would think this Veteran would desire to be productive and contributing to society and to his own support - one would think. So if he is industrious and still a hard worker - he could find other employment. Or could help the company find something for him to do.
If I were hired to do a job, and it later turned out that I just really was incapable to performing said duties - regardless of the reason, how would said employer be obligated to continue to keep me on the payroll? Oh - that’s right, we live in a nation that desperately wants to become another Greece - where the government so over-extends is payout obligations, there isn’t enough cash in the country to keep making the payments... So the answer is to force businesses and corporations to pay what isn’t really theirs to pay.
Now - if the veteran was still able to do his job up to company standards - then why would he have been let go? If he is NOT able to perform the duties of the job - why would he be entitled to keep said job and pay?
Where did they say this vet was unable to perform his job?
Every company when they hire a person you have a reasonable accommodation statement and your status as a veteran has a check off...
RR knew what is status was...
Re-reading the excerpt, it sounds like the employer, RR, did not hold his job open as is required for employers of service members who are deployed. This maybe be the bigger issue than whether or not he was disabled. ??
First off, this is another typical story that fails to provide the necessary back ground information for people to make an honest assessment of the results.
Any comments being made either for or against the wounded veteran are based solely on emotion and not background facts.
With that being said, while the news reports that he was fired, it's quite likely that due to the nature of his injuries, especially to his head, that they could not accomodate him with a future job.
The fact that the settlement was for a mere $100K indicates to me that that was likely the case..........
Roto Rooter did not break him. Why do they have to pay for him? I did not do 20 years to preserve the right of the government to pass its obligations onto employers.
Protection for veterans employment while deployed is codified in federal law.
They didnt have to “pay” for being disabled....they have to give him his job back or offer something simular...and he was a manager...not a snake herder...
I suppose it is possible that the hiring manager simply assumed he couldn't do the work. Even if that is the case I still find it wrong that the Federal government gets a say in the relationship between an employer and employee.
This is nothing new. Been going on forever.
I went and read the linked page info. The OP article does not give enough information to determine if either side fulfilled their respective responsibilities - as the returning service member has some significant responsibilities both pre-and post-service time.
And here’s the other ringer of an issue - like position? Can that include a requirement to move - maybe even a long distance on his own dime?
But again - not enough info in the article (that is nearly as biased as many replies posted in this thread).
Second, does the $100,000 go to the complainant or to the Feds?
******************************************************************
40% to his lawyer, 40% fed.,state and local taxes and he may get to keep the rest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.