Posted on 11/10/2016 4:40:06 PM PST by Stayfree
A “Hostile Work Environment” is usually legal table pounding.
Employees use it to break contracts, but generally suing for a HWE is a legal non-starter.
(Above should not be considered legal advice as I am probably not admitted to the Bar in your state.)
Former employees should picket and harass, just like the Left. Occupy GrubHub. Demand the CEO be fired.
I had never heard of the company either.
Suborning a felony is a serious problem, but I don’t see that here.
Also, unless he was insisting on multiple registrations, or overseeing mail-in ballots, his defense would be, “Certainly I told them of my political views. It is my legal right to do so. But once inside that voting booth they were free to do as they chose.”
Nothing illegal there.
Many states recognize a tort of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. 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.
If he PREVENTED them from their free exercise of voting as they chose, he has problems, including, generally Civil Rights problems.
If he just told them how to vote, he is exercising HIS legal rights.
And short of going into the voting booth with them or overseeing a mail-in ballot, how could he PREVENT their free exercise of their voting rights.
I know, it’s sh**y, but not illegal, and probably not actionable.
In addition, even of their was liability, what are their MONETARY damages?
Most probably, a legal non-starter.
No. He is threatening to fire them for voting against his wishes. That is actionable.
It’s okay, he sold 14,000 shares Monday, so he has little concern for the stock price until February next year.
GrubHub is on social media. Be sure to give them some love.
If this CEO had a real set of nads in his bucket of principles he’d let it be know that they don’t want business from people who voted for Trump.
done
There may be a small chance of a successful civil case here, if the following happens.
1: He does so fire people.
2: He admits or it can be (very) clearly demonstrated that he did so solely because of how they voted, not for any political belief they espoused, conversations, bad performance, Gazing With Intent to Gawk, Mopery in the 3d Degree, etc.
3: The plaintiffs can prove that he knew how they voted.
4: They get a decent lawyer which would be hard to do, because they aren’t going to get any punitive damages here, no lawyer is going to carry the court and administrative costs of the action even if they are working on a contingency, the plaintiffs would be hard pressed to carry the costs, and lost salary would be limited to until they could be reasonably be expected to get another similar paying job.
Best retribution is the bad publicity he is getting, although in certain quarters, it’s probably getting his Grubhub more business!
To give you an idea how that effect works, San Francisco probably loves him, and even when a program such as 60 Minutes does a story on a scam, 35% of them report INCREASED business due to the publicity!
Like The Law, it’s crazy.
Actually, he is NOT threatening to fire people for how they voted.
See the core article at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/boss-tells-pro-trump-employees-to-resign.html
His saying that if an employee shares Mr. Trump’s attitudes/beliefs, they should resign. He is certainly within his (stupid) legal rights to do so.
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.