In events like these I'm glad I'm living under protective labor laws and not in the US. That would have forced all parties involved to talk it out like grown-ups instead of resorting to terminating those involved.
Now there is no kind of resolution, but two people are unemployed and two companies are damaged. Nice going.
This is the second post I've read recently about the US having no labor laws. Is that what everybody outside the US thinks?
There's tons of laws and certain types of jobs are very difficult to fire people (unionized industries and govt. jobs). And there are laws and lawsuits for wrongful termination.
Private companies still have labor laws they have to obey. Except for certain types of issues employees can be fired. Depending in the size of the company things may be more or less formal.
If I had to guess, Adria at least has a pretty easily won harassment lawsuit against SendGrid for this. She was fired for speaking out about an instance of sexually inappropriate humor while she was acting in a professional capacity. Um? Even if you think the way she spoke out was not appropriate, you can't fire someone for this without running some serious risks of large lawsuits.
For anyone who's curious, the texts I'm working off of are http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/retaliation.cfm and http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/facts-retal.cfm. It seems pretty clear that Adria is a covered individual and that an adverse action has been taken. SendGrid is almost certainly a covered entity. The remaining question is whether Adria has engaged in a protected activity and if that is what she was fired for.
The protected activity I think most closely matches what she did is, "Complaining to anyone about alleged discrimination against oneself or others." Now, in the case of this document, what they mean by alleged discrimination is any harassing behavior. But, I believe it is also typically only such behaviors by someone working at the covered entity. So the open question in my mind is whether the law covers adverse actions for complaints about harassment by third parties. I guess we'd have to ask a lawyer.
To the question of whether that is what she was fired for. If it isn't, it's quite a coincidence. I think it would be hard for SendGrid to convince a judge that she was fired for something other than her complaint.
It's retaliation if Adria filed a charge against SendGrid and then was fired.
"because they filed a charge of discrimination, because they complained to their employer or other covered entity about discrimination on the job, or because they participated in an employment discrimination proceeding"
Yeah, if this is a total statement of the law's provisions, then it is probable that this is not retaliation. However, if discrimination covers making complaints about the discriminatory behavior or harassment of third parties (i.e. the gentlemen she posted the picture of), then it would. I would be interested to find out.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of jobs in the US, especially the ones that in the I/T industry and in the startup world, have "at will" employement, which means very little protection for the employees. Also, startups typically have very little assets, which means that a lawyer is unlikely to take a wrongful termination lawsuit on a contingency basis. In the US, you get the best justice money can buy.
Speaking as an employer, this isn't strictly true. There are a lot of steps we have to follow in order to terminate full time employees.
If we're terminating someone for performance reasons we have to have a documented history of attempting to improve their behavior and objective measures which indicate that they were unable to improve. Otherwise we're likely to be sued for wrongful termination, which is one of the only circumstances where the burden of proof is on the accused and not the accuser (because, according to precedent as I understand it, the employer is at an informational advantage over the employee.)
If we're terminating someone for behavioral issues like sexual harassment or any other type of misconduct, there has to be robust documentation and evidence supporting that too should it ever come to a lawsuit.
In other words, I can't just do whatever the fuck I want. And I'm fine with that - employees and employers should both enjoy equal protection under the law.
That's like saying that in Europe people can legally own guns too.
It's factually true (in fact, it's not even that hard in most countries), but the way it is legislated is so vastly different that the labor laws the US has are almost insignificant. (The power of certain unions is a different matter, but that doesn't apply here.)
I don't know a thing about gun laws in Europe. Which is why I don't make statements on the subject, even though I may see something on the news involving a crime in Europe.
I'm just saying to anybody who perceives that the US is some sort of Wild West in regards to labor laws - you are not really going off of the facts. The US has a lot if laws that are complex beyond my understanding of them, and I actually am a business owner with employees!
One thing not mentioned - when you do terminate an employee your company often has to pay their unemployment (basically a short-term salary paid to them by the government), and your costs go up if you have many unemployment claims. So it is certainly not a desirable thing for either party to fire employees.
Well, considering that whenever the actions of an employer are questioned people on the internet are quick to assert that privacy in the work place does not exist and that employment is at-will.
I can see where our foreign friends get the impression.
Agreed. It always makes me shiver with how casually people are fired from their jobs in the US. Some aspects of US society still seem like the wild west to me. Not that where I live is perfect (Netherlands) but at least I know I'll get a fair chance.
When I lived in Holland, we'd have problems with employees that would linger for months, sometimes years, wasting tons of time/money/effort, damaging morale of the team. And the outcome was always the same: the employee left.
I came to believe that its better to bring things to resolution very fast, for both the employer and employee.
Very true. Which is why I preface my comment with "in events like these".
Getting rid of a dysfunctional employee can be an nightmare for everyone involved. We usually try to buy their resignation, it's expensive and a bit dirty, but relatively painless.
> In events like these I'm glad I'm living under protective labor laws and not in the US.
Why?! The developer in question is essentially unemployable in Europe, because of the superficial appearance that there might be something wrong with him. Hiring in Europe is a high-stakes decision, so companies weed out applicants that have even the smallest warning signs. Whereas in America he will have a new job in short order.
Even worse, in Europe his former colleagues would be trapped in contracts with an employer that has revealed themselves as a total asshat. Whereas in America, there is a good chance that the asshat company will soon be without an engineering staff or the ability to hire a new one as it should be.
Now there is no kind of resolution, but two people are unemployed and two companies are damaged. Nice going.