Walmart employee fired after trying to help assault victim in store parking lot

thanks for the info

 

I really hate policy wonks.

 

I hate Walmart. Never shop there.

 

None in particular, but if you're going to actively condemn Walmart for their actions, I think there is a responsibility to be clear on exactly what happened.

 

Probation is the first 90 days of employment if I recall correctly. So you're saying that 'wrongful termination laws' don't apply during the first 90 days of employment?

 

Heard earlier that WalMart offered him his job back........

Maybe one of the upper echelon tho't 'well, gee. If that was my grandmother, mother, wife, daughter, lover being attacked, I'd want someone to help her...."

I hope he tells them to stuff their job and finds a much better one.......

 

Nope. Termination is fine for ANY reason, other than because of illegal discrimination - race, creed, color, etc.

There is a general myth about "wrongful termination" anyway. Companies can fire anyone anytime for almost anything, arbitrary or not, except for the previously mentioned discrimination reasons. There are also almost NO 'wrongful termination laws' that apply ANYTIME during employment, "right to work" state or not.

And usually the ONLY issue is whether or not the terminated employee is entitled to get unemployment,

 

To my understanding it doesn't. I could be wrong but I'm not entirely sure to be honest with you.

 

BTW, "an employees "probationary period" is as long as the company says it is. The point for the "probationary period" is the company doesn't even need to apply its OWN policies (as spelled out in the company's OWN personnel handbook,if they have one) for termination.

It has NO legal meaning other than that.

Many companies for the past decade or more have instituted "probationary periods" for 18 months or even longer. Since, during the probationary period such things as health insurance, sick time and other bennies often do not apply or accrue, the resulting "profit enhancements" are the obvious motivation.

 

Not "right to work", but employment "AT WILL", and yes there are laws that apply anytime.


In addition, Montana has a statutory Wrongful Termination act. After a probation period, an employee can not be fired without cause (defined in law). This is of course aside from Title 7, etc., which apply ANYTIME.

 

What a stupid law, technically under that law an employer who goes out of business could be sued by their former employees for termination without cause.


But beyond that, let me ask this, does Montana law prohibit employees from quitting "without cause?" I'm guessing no .

 

NO, the employee has no legal recourse, that should be legally obvious.

The law is not bilateral in enforcement.

 

1) A discharge is wrongful only if:

(a) it was in retaliation for the employee's refusal to violate public policy or for reporting a violation of public policy;


(b) the discharge was not for good cause and the employee had completed the employer's probationary period of employment;

(c) the employer violated the express provisions of its own written personnel policy.

(2) (a) During a probationary period of employment, the employment may be terminated at the will of either the employer or the employee on notice to the other for any reason or for no reason.(b) If an employer does not establish a specific probationary period or provide that there is no probationary period prior to or at the time of hire, there is a probationary period of 6 months from the date of hire.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/mtcode/39/2/9

 

Exactly, the law is not fair. And laws are SUPPOSED to be about fairness. if you can legally quit working for menfor any reason, I ought be able to legally terminate you without reason.The only thing this law would accomplish is to discourage me from giving iffy applicants a chance.

 

That's easy to say when you ARE the employer, like you said you have your own business.

 

That presumes employer and employee are equal partners in the relationship, which I don't see as being the case. The employer determines all of the terms and conditions of employment - all the employee can do is choose to accept them or not. Fairness in employment law doesn't necessarily mean employees and employers having exactly the same rights and responsibilities.

 

Thank you!!!

 

And if the shoe were on the other foot I'm quite certain that employees would find it easy to say so.

I'm pro work related laws that regulate wages, hours, things of that nature. But I shouldn't be FORCED to serve people I don't want to serve, hire people I don't want to hire, or retain employees who I don't want to retain.

Let me ask you this, suppose I lived in Montana and one of my employees seen my wife out in public and oh let's say he made a pass at her and she told me, are you telling me that legally I couldn't fire him for his behavior? The law sure reads that way to me.

 

So you are saying the law should not forbid you to not hire blacks if you do not want to??

Could be, could not be!

 

Let's say you as an employer tell an employee to forge tax documents against the law for your profit, and s/he does not. Is it right that you should be able to terminate them for that?

 

My business is MY property. I know , because I just paid the property tax. I should be able to hire and do business with whomever I wish, and decline to do hire or do business with anyone I wish. Telling me otherwise should be unconstitutional.

Could be or could not be? I should have EVERY right to fire an employee who insults my wife, no questions asked.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, you should be able to. Of course then said employee should turn your ass into the IRS , and why on Earth would anyone WANT to work for someone who told them to do something illegal? Frankly , if I worked for another person and they asked me to do something illegal, I'd quit, on the spot.

 

What if you got your property taxes raised due ONLY to your race/color, boy you'd have a fit, right?

 

Agreed. In all other aspects of your life you are entitled to choose. No one is allowed on your property without your consent. You can bar them for any reason at all. Too short, don't like their clothes, woman, man, black, white, driving the wrong car, etc. You are also free to frequent any place of business you like, for whatever reason you want. You can also associate with whomever you want for whatever reasons you want. But you are not permitted to do the same with your business? That's wrong. I may think it's stupid or silly that you don't want to serve or hire some group and I am free to not do business with you should I not like it. But it should remain your right nonetheless.

Of course. Because all people should treated the same under the law. The government should have no right to discriminate based on anything.

 

So a termination based on sexual harassment as a claim by an employee should be legal??

 

The policy is there to prevent danger. If a shoplifter is leaving the store they don't want you to attack the shoplifter because it will put people in danger.

But in this case someone was already in danger. I'm not sure how he should be expected not to help.