The first time I ever got fired:

Page 1 of 2  
Many years ago I used to work for a property management company as a technician. One day they asked me to do a repair that was against building and safety codes. I refused, so they fired me. After I got fired I applied for unemployment. The EDD (Employment Development Department) told me that I wasnt eligible to collect unemployment because I wasnt laid-off but was fired. I appealed their decision to a judge who, although accepted the fact that I was asked to do something illegal, never-the-less found that I wasnt qualified to receive unemployment because the law says that I cannot receive unemployment if you are dismissed form a position. What made me think of this incident? Read this article and see how corporations are literally controlling your lives:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-04/fla-lifeguard-fired/56018178/1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:43:48 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-04/fla-lifeguard-fired/56018178/1
Yah, and considering the trade defecit with China is growing out of control, we'll soon be owned and ruled by Chinese corporations.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That's okay because then we can Nationalize and take it back free of charge.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:43:48 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote
first time I ever got fired::

technician. One day they asked me to do a repair that was against building and safety codes. I refused, so they fired me. After I got fired I applied for unemployment. The EDD (Employment Development Department) told me that I wasnt eligible to collect unemployment because I wasnt laid-off but was fired. I appealed their decision to a judge who, although accepted the fact that I was asked to do something illegal, never-the-less found that I wasnt qualified to receive unemployment because the law says that I cannot receive unemployment if you are dismissed form a position.

"Two other lifeguards have quit in protest."
Good move on their part, because if they had watched someone drown and did nothing because it was against company policy to live their section, my guess is that they would have had some serious personal liability. Company policy not being a defense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Theodore Edward Stosterone wrote:

Wrong.
It was a public beach.
Some people came over to the life guard and said someone was in trouble. He followed them over to an area that was signed as "unsupervised area" that was a couple-hundred feet beyond his patrol zone. The guard may not have known initially they were taking him over to that area when they went to get him.
The city that hired the life-guard company issued a statement that they value the life and safety of everyone on the beach regardless what part of the beach they're on.

Again, it wasn't a private beach.
And if the guard didn't respond to this guy (because he was outside the zone) and if they guy died, then the family could or would probably sue the city and the company for negligence or "wrongful death".
It's simply not smart to put people (life guards) in situations like this, but this is par for the course for you Americans.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the fired life guard was offered his job back but he no longer cares to work for them
the communities using the contract company should fire them, to send the message firing workers for saving someones life is pure stupid
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/06/2012 12:50 AM, bob haller wrote:

I suspect the life guard will own the life guard company when the lawyers get through.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jack Klompus wrote:

Not likely.
The life guard seemed to be in his early 20's, spoke very good english but is probably first-generation American of hispanic origin (so he nor his family probably don't have enough money to pursue this legally).
It might have been some sort of violation of California labor or employment laws to terminate his employment the way they did, but because they offered to hire him back - and he refused - then he probably has no case.
I wonder if he can collect unemployment insurance - given the very odd and complicated way that his employment ended. Normally you can't collect UI if you quit your job (at least you can't here in Canada) - and it could be argued that he essentially quit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Doubt it. FL is an at-will state and he did violate policies and procedures in place at the time. While it is a PR mess, I doubt it would be a legal mess. If he files, the only way he'd get any money is if he agreed to take less than the costs of defending it.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, just close the beaches. That'll teach 'em.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I believe you're in error. "Employment at will" cannot nullify pubic policy. Indeed, a violation of public policy is one of the ways even the most stringent of contracts can be voided.
While it is true there is no legal obligation to come to the aid of someone in distress, even by police, the reverse is not true. That is, declining to provide life-saving aid to others cannot be part of a contract, for employment or otherwise, and a sanction for so doing cannot be sustained.
The speciics of public policy need not be spelled out in detail. For example, selling a used car in exchange for ten sex episodes is obviously against public policy and a contract containing such a provision is void on its face.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did you read the link? It specifically states (with a link to the FL statute) that shows there is no exception for "public policy". The employer is free to employ, or not, at his discretion.

There is no reason needed. That's the point. FL does have explicit exceptions to the "at will" employment law, but this isn't one of them. Without the exception, it holds, particularly if the legislature has considered other exceptions.

The fact is that there is are explicit exceptions and this isn't one. It's clearly the intent of the law to not exclude these sorts of issues.
It's not without its reason, either. When he left his beach, he left those people unprotected. The liability boggles.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your link appears to refer to this:
448.102 Prohibitions.An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: (1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. However, this subsection does not apply unless the employee has, in writing, brought the activity, policy, or practice to the attention of a supervisor or the employer and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy, or practice. (2) Provided information to, or testified before, any appropriate governmental agency, person, or entity conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by the employer. (3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.
Seems to me that the "employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has" ... "(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation."
That seems to me to mean that the employer may not fire the employee because the employee did something which the employer didn't like but which prohibition violates the law, etc.
That in my reading is the exact opposite of what you claim. But them, English is my second language. I hope you can explain to me what the above really means.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does this apply to the lifeguard who left his post?

Does this?

Case closed.

Show me the law or regulation that covers this situation.

How is remaining on the job a violation of the law.

You're a leftist, who believes the government is here to help us, too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Yes, to the last statement. That doesn't mean scrutiny and review of what gvmnt does isn't necessary.
Now let's look at the facts (as I know them). Company has been contracted by the town for lifeguarding a beach. Company hires people, but limits each one to a certain stretch of beach, narrowly delineated. Contract with employees says that lifeguard cannot leave his duty station/stretch of beach unless he has gotten a replacement person to take over his duties. That's understandable in view of liability for the company: don't leave the duty station without getting a replacement. Guard A is on duty at the end of the contracted beach. Beyond his stretch of beach on 1 side, there is no lifeguard on duty. "A" at some point notices that a person "P" a few yeards outside "A"'s area of responsibility is in the water and in distress. Following his duty that /if so able he should help a person in distress/ (that's the part that is important - it's akin to the good samaritan laws) he goes to help "P". Nobody gets really injured, whether or not due to the efforts of "A". Company fires "A" because he left his duty station without getting a replacement (see above). Stink erupts because of "/if so able he should help a person in distress/", and company relents, but in the meantime, "A" has decided he doesn't want to work for such a company, as did a number of his colleagues. The last portion is irrelevant for the determination whether or not the firing was justified, of course, but helps to see what the general public thinks. Me thinks that the company cannot use the at-will law to fire "A" becaus "A" is fulfilling the duty he sees to "/if so able he should help a person in distress/". Case closed.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But Florida has no duty to respond law. A's area of responsibility for in water and in distress IS ONLY A CERTAIN SECTION OF BEACH. This is the difference. He may morally feel his has an obligation, but that doesn't impact on whether or not he can be legally fired.

But he has no duty under law or public policy to respond outside of the area he is being paid to respond to. So, the company is entirely within their rights to can him. Now, whether or not they SHOULD have, since the shit storm was foreseeable if anyone thought about it, is another.... non-legal.. question altogether.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

As I interpret it, there does not need to be a "duty" to respond. It is just that the fire at will law has an exception for cases just like this. If I read the cited section of Florida law correctly. IMO the "rule" does not have to explicitly say that I cannot let a person die. Common decency requires that if I can help someone in distress, I should do so. Again English is my second language, and I was brought up (decades ago) to help people needing help if it was in my province to do so.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But it doesn't because the law states things like asking you go against a law, etc., are the only exceptions. If there is no legal duty or requirement to do something in this case, or not do something in others, then there is no public policy exception. While decency requires you help someone in distress, that is not a protection against being fired. I think your main problem isn't that English is your second language, but that law is your third (grin)>
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well, perhaps. I was also relying on this 1 liner on wikipedia: "Common law protects an employee from retaliation if the employee disobeys an employer on the grounds that the employer ordered him or her to do something illegal or immoral. " 4th paragraph under 'Origins' on <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment>
Letting someone drown would be immoral, IMO.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.