Budweiser Employee Fired for Drinking Coors

[spacejamz]

Sorry if this is a repost, but I did a search on Bud, Coors and Beer and found nothing...

Bud man: Canned for Coors?
By Hyoung Chang, The Denver Post
DENVER (AP) - Ross Hopkins still likes to drink Bud, even though he says a brief tryst with a Coors beer cost him his job at a Budweiser distributor.

Hopkins, 41, is suing American Eagle Distributing Co., saying the company wrongly fired him for drinking Coors in a bar two years ago.

"They flat-out told me 'We're putting food on your table so you could put it on theirs?'" he said Tuesday. "I thought I could drink it, no problem."

Hopkins' lawsuit, filed in a Greeley court, seeks unspecified damages for lost wages and benefits. No trial date has been set.

Jeff Bedingfield, an attorney for the distributor, declined to comment, saying: "American Eagle prefers not to try this case in the media."

Colorado law says workers cannot be fired for a legal activity while off duty and away from work. There are exceptions, such as when a worker's actions relate to an occupational requirement or create a conflict of interest.

In a court filing, American Eagle said Hopkins' termination "was necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with his responsibilities to American Eagle and/or the appearance of such a conflict of interest."

Hopkins, who was a warehouse supervisor for the distributor, said he was not wearing a uniform or representing American Eagle when he was at the bar in May 2003 with some co-workers. He said he had ordered a Budweiser but a waitress brought Coors. He decided to drink it because he didn't want to wait.

The son-in-law of the distributor's majority shareholder also was at the bar, and offered twice to buy him a Budweiser, but Hopkins turned it down both times.

He was fired the following Monday.

 

[KLin]

I hope he wins his lawsuit.

 

[pulse8]

Incredible.

 

[Fingolfin269]

That will teach him some company pride.

 

[franksta]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
That will teach him some company pride.

Exactly. If you don't like the company or product don't sign the offering letter.

 

[UNCjigga]

Meh, Coors doesn't taste much better than Bud (but its loads better than Bud Light.) He would have drank a Miller if he really wanted to piss people off! Give him his job back.

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
That will teach him some company pride.

Exactly. If you don't like the company or product don't sign the offering letter.

did you read the article? he asked for a bud first but was given the wrong beer.

plus, why should he have to conform to their standards everywhere?

 

[KamakaziRcr]

This happened to a Coors employee who was pictured in a local newspaper drinking a Budweiser. The only difference that time, he purposely ordered a Budweiser and he worked directly for the Coors company.

 

[jbaggins]

Sounds like the son in law is a rich precocious a55 that probably got mad at him when he refused at the bar and is trying to flex his 'muscle.'

American Eagle should lose on this. clear case.

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Sorry if this is a repost, but I did a search on Bud, Coors and Beer and found nothing...

Bud man: Canned for Coors?
By Hyoung Chang, The Denver Post
DENVER (AP) - Ross Hopkins still likes to drink Bud, even though he says a brief tryst with a Coors beer cost him his job at a Budweiser distributor.

Hopkins, 41, is suing American Eagle Distributing Co., saying the company wrongly fired him for drinking Coors in a bar two years ago.

"They flat-out told me 'We're putting food on your table so you could put it on theirs?'" he said Tuesday. "I thought I could drink it, no problem."

Hopkins' lawsuit, filed in a Greeley court, seeks unspecified damages for lost wages and benefits. No trial date has been set.

Jeff Bedingfield, an attorney for the distributor, declined to comment, saying: "American Eagle prefers not to try this case in the media."

Colorado law says workers cannot be fired for a legal activity while off duty and away from work. There are exceptions, such as when a worker's actions relate to an occupational requirement or create a conflict of interest.

In a court filing, American Eagle said Hopkins' termination "was necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with his responsibilities to American Eagle and/or the appearance of such a conflict of interest."

Hopkins, who was a warehouse supervisor for the distributor, said he was not wearing a uniform or representing American Eagle when he was at the bar in May 2003 with some co-workers. He said he had ordered a Budweiser but a waitress brought Coors. He decided to drink it because he didn't want to wait.

The son-in-law of the distributor's majority shareholder also was at the bar, and offered twice to buy him a Budweiser, but Hopkins turned it down both times.

He was fired the following Monday.

 

[chrisms]

Originally posted by: tami

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
That will teach him some company pride.

Exactly. If you don't like the company or product don't sign the offering letter.

did you read the article? he asked for a bud first but was given the wrong beer.

plus, why should he have to conform to their standards everywhere?

Although I don't think he should've been fired, I don't buy his story.

 

[meister]

what happened is clear.

the son in law of the major share holder-- read IE OWNER, offered him twice to get him a Bud, he declined. then was fired. it pissed off the owner that someone in his employment was drinking the competition.

not probably the best reason to fire someone, but you have no idea how competitive some markets are and you don't need employees that don't believe the gospel you are preaching.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
That will teach him some company pride.

Exactly. If you don't like the company or product don't sign the offering letter.

That's just silly.

 

[franksta]

Originally posted by: tami

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
That will teach him some company pride.

Exactly. If you don't like the company or product don't sign the offering letter.

did you read the article? he asked for a bud first but was given the wrong beer.

plus, why should he have to conform to their standards everywhere?

What article? There is no link, only this: "The son-in-law of the distributor's majority shareholder also was at the bar, and offered twice to buy him a Budweiser, but Hopkins turned it down both times."

 

[PHiuR]

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: tami

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
That will teach him some company pride.

Exactly. If you don't like the company or product don't sign the offering letter.

did you read the article? he asked for a bud first but was given the wrong beer.

plus, why should he have to conform to their standards everywhere?

What article? There is no link, only this: "The son-in-law of the distributor's majority shareholder also was at the bar, and offered twice to buy him a Budweiser, but Hopkins turned it down both times."

the man diddnt want to waste any beer...
i would rather drink it than waste a good beer.

 

[gshock888]

propaganda. we all know Coors own the state of Colorado
therefore Denver Post is biased

 

[spacejamz]

What article? There is no link, only this: "The son-in-law of the distributor's majority shareholder also was at the bar, and offered twice to buy him a Budweiser, but Hopkins turned it down both times."

This is a first...actually pasted the article so you didn't have to click on the link, now someone says wants the link...

Anyways, here is the link to the story...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: tami

Originally posted by: franksta

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
That will teach him some company pride.

Exactly. If you don't like the company or product don't sign the offering letter.

did you read the article? he asked for a bud first but was given the wrong beer.

plus, why should he have to conform to their standards everywhere?

What article? There is no link, only this: "The son-in-law of the distributor's majority shareholder also was at the bar, and offered twice to buy him a Budweiser, but Hopkins turned it down both times."

Quick search turns up dozens of articles on this:

5-17-2005 Colorado man says Budweiser distributor fired him for drinking Coors

 

[Amused]

The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

 

[Albis]

wow just wow

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Amused
The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

Achtung United Republican Corporations and Religious Republican Churches of America

 

[mordantmonkey]

fvking retarded .
unless he signed something saying he represented the company at all times then there is no legal basis for his firing. even if he ordered a round of coors for the house.
he will win.
here at the bank our officers are liable for their conduct outside the bank/work hours. but they have to sign an agreement to this when they get the position.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Amused
The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

If Budweiser can prove that drinking another brand of beer is a 'Conflict of Interest', then they should have an open and shut case. Somehow, I don't think that will happen though...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
fvking retarded .
unless he signed something saying he represented the company at all times then there is no legal basis for his firing. even if he ordered a round of coors for the house.
he will win.
here at the bank our officers are liable for their conduct outside the bank/work hours. but they have to sign an agreement to this when they get the position.

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Amused
The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

If Budweiser can prove that drinking another brand of beer is a 'Conflict of Interest', then they should have an open and shut case. Somehow, I don't think that will happen though...

Should bookmark this. He will not win. The Corporations Rule as Amused said.

 

[mordantmonkey]

Originally posted by: Amused
The firing, while stupid, is perfectly legal. He would have no leg to stand on in a lawsuit.

There are only a few federal restrictions on why you can fire someone, and they are based on sex, religion, and national origin/race and whistle-blowing.

Employers are rightfully allowed to fire anyone for anything other than that.

where did you get this from?

 

[captains]

should be fired for not excepting free beers.....cmon now...who in their right mind would turn down free booze