Trump Caught Ilegally Terminating (through non-renewal) Another Veteran

[glenn1]

Gotta love all the fapping over the thread title. Call it what you will, split the very finest of hairs if you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that Trump airlines' treatment of Beattie was illegal. Any HR person who wasn't born yesterday knows it, too. No matter how inconvenient to the employer, training & deployment schedules of reservists & national guard must be accommodated. Period.

Under the circumstances the refusal to hire was illegal also, no one disputes that. But they are still two different illegal acts. If I posted something saying "Jhhnn committed libel" others would be within their rights to ask for a correction if what you actually did was slander. It doesn't matter if they're both illegal and are closely related to each other, it's still a different thing.

That being said, it looks like the impacted person got a summary judgement based on clear evidence so the outcome was correct. However just like other supposed "scandals" like Hillary's email I don't think this matters one whit to whether he's qualified to be POTUS or whether electing him would be a good idea. If something like a hiring decision he almost certainly had nothing to do with helps you decide how to vote, great. Otherwise I see this as a non-factor.

 

[wetech]

That's addressed later in the opinion. Read further.

I read the whole thing. Didn't see where it addressed the fact that he still had a job waiting for him at the old company.

 

[Jhhnn]

Under the circumstances the refusal to hire was illegal also, no one disputes that. But they are still two different illegal acts. If I posted something saying "Jhhnn committed libel" others would be within their rights to ask for a correction if what you actually did was slander. It doesn't matter if they're both illegal and are closely related to each other, it's still a different thing.

That being said, it looks like the impacted person got a summary judgement based on clear evidence so the outcome was correct. However just like other supposed "scandals" like Hillary's email I don't think this matters one whit to whether he's qualified to be POTUS or whether electing him would be a good idea. If something like a hiring decision he almost certainly had nothing to do with helps you decide how to vote, great. Otherwise I see this as a non-factor.

I'll grant that it's simple character assassination, something Repubs don't have a lot of room to complain about. Now it's their turn to be on the receiving end. We'll see if they can take it as well as they dish it out.

 

[Jhhnn]

I read the whole thing. Didn't see where it addressed the fact that he still had a job waiting for him at the old company.

The old company was defunct.

 

[glenn1]

I'll grant that it's simple character assassination, something Repubs don't have a lot of room to complain about. Now it's their turn to be on the receiving end. We'll see if they can take it as well as they dish it out.

Assassinate away, I don't have a problem with that and it couldn't happen to a more deserving person. But there's no reason why you can't be accurate while you're doing the deed. "Illegal hiring practices" sounds just as bad as "illegally fired" while also being correct.

 

[wetech]

The old company was defunct.

nope.

Trump entered into an agreement with Eastern to purchase the assets and operations of Eastern's shuttle division. The shuttle service consists of scheduled air carrier operations in the Washington, D.C., Boston, and New York markets.

[...]

Beattie completed his duties at the Industrial College on June 15, 1989. He never applied for reinstatement to his former position at Eastern, although his position at Eastern still existed and was available to him. There is no evidence showing that Beattie had been assigned to Eastern's shuttle division previous to his military leave or that Trump's purchase of the shuttle had eliminated Beattie's former position.

 

[MongGrel]

Under the circumstances the refusal to hire was illegal also, no one disputes that. But they are still two different illegal acts. If I posted something saying "Jhhnn committed libel" others would be within their rights to ask for a correction if what you actually did was slander. It doesn't matter if they're both illegal and are closely related to each other, it's still a different thing.

That being said, it looks like the impacted person got a summary judgement based on clear evidence so the outcome was correct. However just like other supposed "scandals" like Hillary's email I don't think this matters one whit to whether he's qualified to be POTUS or whether electing him would be a good idea. If something like a hiring decision he almost certainly had nothing to do with helps you decide how to vote, great. Otherwise I see this as a non-factor.

You're as bad or worse than bucky sometimes, there is the Hillary's email drop.

Apparently the judge didn't agree with you, yet the rants continue.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Read the article here, it is stunning in more ways than not:

http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/06/...r-lawsuit-for-illegally-firing-a-veteran-too/

You have to understand, with Trump it is always somebody else's fault. And your article is a little iffy.

 

[werepossum]

For what it's worth, I agree that refusal to hire is the correct term, as it is the term the judge used. I do not however agree that this isn't equal to firing. In this case, where Trump acquired part of a carrier, contractually agreed to hire the existing pilots, and did not hire one actively deployed reservist because he was unavailable, refusal to hire is exactly the same as firing. Dude had a job, dude was deprived of that job by Trump's organization. (I highly doubt that Trump himself hires and fires pilots any more than the Secretary of State personally sets security levels at individual embassies and lesser facilities.) In this case, refusal to hire can be (and should be) equated to firing because the legal standard is very different from refusal to hire where Beattie had no previous employment with Trump or the organization Trump acquired.

This is one of those rare cases where the legally precise term is actually less appropriate than another, less factually precise term. I'm all for precision, but let's not sacrifice accuracy to embrace it.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Jhhnn View Post
The old company was defunct.

Trump entered into an agreement with Eastern to purchase the assets and operations of Eastern's shuttle division. The shuttle service consists of scheduled air carrier operations in the Washington, D.C., Boston, and New York markets.
-snip-

nope.

The part you quoted proves that Jhhnn's remark was correct.

Trump purchased the assets etc of Eastern, not Eastern's stock.

There are two ways to structure the acquisition of a (target) company:

1. Acquisition of the target company's stock. The company remains in existence, however, ownership changes.

2. Asset purchase. The target company (Eastern in this case) is liquidated and its assets are transferred to the purchaser. The target company is usually terminated. Otherwise it will continue to exist as a mere shell company (no assets and inactive). (A merger is substantially similar to an asset purchase for our purposes as the acquiring company gains the target company's assets and the target company is terminated upon the completion of the merger.)

Fern

 

[Jaskalas]

He wasn't employed by Trump so it is literally impossible for him to have been fired.

I suspect the employees were part of the agreement to buy the company.
Thus the ruling against Trump's organization.

 

[chucky2]

So the ray ray raaaaayyyycist, my my misogynst, and xe xe xenophobic!!!! are out there and trending, now to start targeting Vet angle?

It is interesting watching the Clinton/Dem machine at work... 😀

That tail is wagging, make sure to wiggle suckers haha

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

So the ray ray raaaaayyyycist, my my misogynst, and xe xe xenophobic!!!! are out there and trending, now to start targeting Vet angle?

It is interesting watching the Clinton/Dem machine at work... 😀

That tail is wagging, make sure to wiggle suckers haha

and turn and spin, and spin and turn.. good little gop puppet.

 

[werepossum]

So the ray ray raaaaayyyycist, my my misogynst, and xe xe xenophobic!!!! are out there and trending, now to start targeting Vet angle?

It is interesting watching the Clinton/Dem machine at work... 😀

That tail is wagging, make sure to wiggle suckers haha

That's simply politics, pouncing on one's opponent's missteps. It's much easier to convincingly explain why Trump or Hillary should not be President than to convincingly explain why Trump or Hillary should be President, so that's what they do. Obviously this has nothing to do with Trump personally, but it's his organization, so he rightly takes the heat, just like Reagan with Iran-Contra or Christy with Bridgegate or Bill Clinton with Sandy "Pantload" Burglar. Rank hath its privileges; it must also have its responsibilities.