Is this even legal for an employer to do?

sean2002

Golden Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,538
0
0
I work for a huge company that has a really unfair rule. If you get arrested for any violent crime no matter what happened you get suspened without pay and if you are convicted you lose you job. How can they suspend you even though you are still innocent until proven guilty
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,381
8,131
126
I think it really depends on the employer and what it means to them to have you on duty as an employee.

If you work for a school, a child care center, or as a police officer, then your employer is taking not only a legal gamble, but a political one as well keeping you on active duty until you the trial/conviction.
 

sean2002

Golden Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,538
0
0
Originally posted by: teddymines
Are you writing this from a jail cell?


It wasn't me but a man in my department, and his court date is not for 3 months
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,381
8,131
126
Also - my question is - how did they find out?
 

Wingznut

Elite Member
Dec 28, 1999
16,968
2
0
It's easy... don't put yourself in the position where you could get arrested for a violent crime.
 

sean2002

Golden Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,538
0
0
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
What crime, and what does he do for a living?

I work at a Wal-wart Distribution center.

He got into a bar fight. I have no idea how they found out. This is not the first person this has happened to.
 

Ulfwald

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
May 27, 2000
8,646
0
76
If a company has knowledge that an employee has a violent demeanor, and does nothing about it, they can be held liable if that person goes postal at the job.
 

sean2002

Golden Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,538
0
0
Originally posted by: Ulfwald
If a company has knowledge that an employee has a violent demeanor, and does nothing about it, they can be held liable if that person goes postal at the job.

I can agree with that, but not before you are convicted.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: Ulfwald
If a company has knowledge that an employee has a violent demeanor, and does nothing about it, they can be held liable if that person goes postal at the job.

I think this is the right explanation for why Wal-Mart has such a policy.

In any event, any employment that is not under contract can be terminated by either party at will, at any time. The government's posture is that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but a private employer is not bound by these laws and can suspend or terminate a person for any reason they deem appropriate.

 

badluck

Diamond Member
Feb 19, 2001
5,357
0
76
If a company has knowledge that an employee has a violent demeanor, and does nothing about it, they can be held liable if that person goes postal at the job.

In this case, you are wrong.....


Have him go and talk to a lawyer. Asking a bunch of AT hacks, won't get you far.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: badluck
If a company has knowledge that an employee has a violent demeanor, and does nothing about it, they can be held liable if that person goes postal at the job.

In this case, you are wrong.....


Have him go and talk to a lawyer. Asking a bunch of AT hacks, won't get you far.


Ahem - I am a lawyer (in addition to being an AT hack!), and Ulfwald is right on.
 
Jan 18, 2001
14,465
1
0
Noone wants an employee who is either 1) too stupid to avoid getting caught or 2) too stupid to avoid getting framed?


:cool:
 

Ulfwald

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
May 27, 2000
8,646
0
76
Better to protect the entire warehouse from his actions, thus preventing numerous lawsuits. If he is found not guilty, then they really only have 1 legal action to deal with.


Example: We had an employee at company X he was charged with rape. Manager Y suspended him, thus protecting the other employees. It was later discovered that his ex girlfriend filed charges because she had the attitude that "If I can't have him, then no one will." When the evidence was presented and he was found not guilty, Company X reinstated him with full pay, and back pay for time missed. They did not charge him vacation time either.
 

Viper GTS

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
Originally posted by: badluck
If a company has knowledge that an employee has a violent demeanor, and does nothing about it, they can be held liable if that person goes postal at the job.

In this case, you are wrong.....


Have him go and talk to a lawyer. Asking a bunch of AT hacks, won't get you far.

Look directly above you.

:)

Viper GTS
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: Ulfwald
Better to protect the entire warehouse from his actions, thus preventing numerous lawsuits. If he is found not guilty, then they really only have 1 legal action to deal with.

Well put, not to mention that it is a LOT cheaper in terms of money and negative publicity to pay off a wrongfully-suspended employee than a victim of violent crime (or, worse yet, the family of a murder victim).

 

911paramedic

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2002
9,450
1
76
Don't know about the legal aspects, but an employer is responsible for the actions of their employees. If an employer knows, or has knowledge of, an employees violent actions and then that employee has a problem with a customer, the employer is WAY responsible.

Bottom line is that the employer is responsible for the actions of its employees, while on the job.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: badluck
Ahem - I am a lawyer (in addition to being an AT hack!), and Ulfwald is right on.

The employer does not have knowledge of his violent demeanor. Currently, it is an accusation against him. Wal-Mart might have policy that says an employee can be suspended after arrest of a violent crime, but they do not know that he has a violent demeanor......


Try selling that to a jury. Is it your position that they will not "know" he is violent until he is convicted? An employer who willfully ignores evidence of violent tendencies will not play well in court.

You may take issue with Wal Mart's proactive approach, but you have to keep in mind (as I said above) that they have a tremendous amount to lose if the accused-but-not-convicted employee assaults someone.