Do You Think This Is Grounds For Termination?

[Badge714]

Lookit here Hoss...

Maybe you should try to get to know some people with "alternative lifestyles." Who knows, maybe you have friends who are gay or closet crossdressers and you don't even know it. People who have "alternative lifestyles," don't always advertise, you know.

[Blade Runner]

---edited----

[cmndr]

Man, I sure am glad I'm not working for anybody that posted on this thread.

So are we.

[bpdblue]

Ok, since you asked, I would give you the boot.

I base this on your making the man give up his "purse" when that is not done to women, when you should have gone to management to get their opinion on the issue. (This is a common sense issue, which you failed.)

Secondly, your comments in the store, which were obviously heard by others in the store, were COMPLETELY out of line. (This is another common sense issue, which you failed miserably with.)

Your company might not fire you, but you are obviously a liability to them, and if you continue your ways, expect to be in a law suit, that you will be the center of, and it most certainly won't be pretty.

If you cannot control your actions about things that bother you about other persons, you should find a job that does not have you dealing with the general public.

[SecTrainer]

I must just be used to working in "At Will" places. The company I just signed up with is the same. Either employee or employer may terminate employment for any, or no reason at all.

Sorry, but you misunderstand the law. I am talking about "at-will" employers; it's even more restricted if there's a union contract.

ANY EMPLOYER CAN BE SUED FOR UNLAWFUL TERMINATION, whether you think they can be or not. In fact, almost all of the cases for unlawful termination are brought against "at-will" employers because there's a totally different legal procedure for an employee to address his grievance with respect to termination in violation of a union contract, which includes arbitration, etc. and is also under the jurisdiction of a different agency - the NLRB, not the EEOC.

[Yardstick]

I must just be used to working in "At Will" places. The company I just signed up with is the same. Either employee or employer may terminate employment for any, or no reason at all.

[SecTrainer]

i'm pretty positive discriminatory behavior is grounds for termination. It doesn't seem like he would have much of a case.

Not necessarily. This is a little complicated, but as a Certified Employment Law Specialist I think I can speak to this.

Prejudices, including prejudicial expressions, do not per se constitute discriminatory behavior in any case, at least in terms of federal labor law. Essentially, discrimination can arise in one of three ways:

1. An act that is discriminatory (i.e., differentiates unfairly on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, ethnicity or age).

2. A decision that is discriminatory.

3. Frequent and/or severe harassment that is discriminatory, creating a hostile work environment.

All three of the situations above, incidentally, can be discriminatory toward an individual or toward a class of individuals.

In most cases, the relationship of the parties has great significance, and the situation will usually involve an employee and their superior, especially in the case of items #1 and #2 above. Fellow employees will most often fall afoul of item #3, but not by virtue of a single comment. A common example is a male employee who continually sexually harasses a female employee, making repeated suggestive comments, asking her out, rubbing up against her, displaying ****ography where she has to look at it, etc.

In this case, discriminatory means #1 and #2 obviously do not apply. The closest thing that would apply would be #3 (hostile environment), and that would be only if there could be shown a pattern or frequency of such comments that other employees found to be harassing or offensive. A single comment cannot create a "hostile work environment". For instance, a male employee simply asking a female employee for a date cannot constitute sexual harassment, thereby creating a "hostile work environment", assuming that he does not persist if she refuses. I don't think we have any evidence in this case that the offensive remark was anything other than an isolated comment.

Companies are required by federal law to prevent discrimination in the workplace, including prevention of a hostile work environment. This means that they must have policies and procedures for dealing with discrimination at the earliest possible opportunity after an incident comes to the attention of management. THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN FIRING PEOPLE. The EEOC expressly permits companies to use a variety of corrective measures, including "progressive discipline" and training. The company's policies - and not the federal law - will dictate exactly what latitude the company has in dealing with such situations. Of course, if a situation is permitted to persist and employees who are involved are not ultimately terminated, the EEOC will want to know why.

Now, as for the poster who opined that an LP employee wouldn't have the money to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, I can only say that I hope security companies aren't taking refuge behind that kind of thinking. The federal district court dockets all over the country are filled with such lawsuits, most of them filed by people who don't have two nickels to rub together. Why? Well, because it doesn't take much to file these cases, because there are plenty of attorneys who will work for a piece of the back wages and penalties, and because there are plenty of "pro bono" or "nonprofit" law firms where new law school grads are cutting their teeth on such cases. The funny thing is, as cheaply as these cases can be filed, they are enormously expensive to defend - even if the company wins.

I repeat my advice. Ditch the knee-jerk reaction and follow company policies regarding disciplinary procedures - to the letter. The fact that you terminated an employee out of righteous indignation because that he used the word "faggot" one time, if you do so in violation of your own established disciplinary procedures, WILL NOT BE A DEFENSE TO WRONGFUL TERMINATION, no matter how admirable the judge might think your motives were.

I am quite sympathetic to those on the forum who find what the OP said to be highly offensive. However, there is a great difference between words being offensive, and those same words constituting the grounds for taking a particular course of action. It is quite possible to ride your high horse of indignation right into some very deep legal waters.

[CorpSec]

You would be disciplined in a heartbeat at my company, possibly fired. Hey, we all have opinions, but if you want to remain professional...and employed, you do not voice them at work.

What you did was wrong, very wrong. What you did paints you, your employer and the store in a very bad light. You have to be impartial. I doubt very seriously that the store had a policy stating that only women born as women are allowed to carry a purse in the store.

However, you are lucky in that you work for a warm body company that would sooner shuttle a loose cannon to another account than fire you outright. However, I will say that I personally know of much worse behavior than yours that also did not result in anything more than an account banning for a warm body company.

[msofin]

My reaction to the complaint would have been:
1)Preliminary investigation to confirm if the original complaint had any merit
2)If the original complaint has merit a thorough investigation would take place. Ex. statements from all present parties would be taken. The officer would be suspended during this process.
3)If there is not enough evidence to support the validity of the complaint the officer will resume work.
4)If there is enough evidence to support the validity of the complaint (in the scenario presented) the officer must complete mandatory diversity and sensitivity training before returning to work on probation.

I personally feel 'knee jerk' reactions on the part of security management should be avoided. Get the facts first before making a decision. Personally, I am not pleased with what was said, however I do not feel this offense justifies immediate termination.

For those who said they would have terminated the officer on the spot, does your company have any established diversity or sensitivity training in place? If so, have you completed it?

[Yardstick]

I think I speak for everyone when I say that I'm happy I don't have a liability like you working for me :-P

[The Enforcer]

Recently came back from work and two company (store) bosses stopped by. One of them (District Manager) is in charge of the store where I was banned from for my transgression. The other one (Regional Manager), upon observing me work, praised my ability as a guard and suggested to the Store Manager that I should be at his store permanently. After they had left, the Store Manager told me that the District manager had heard about my comment and the three of them had quite a laugh about it.

The only jam this situation is putting me in so far is that the Account Manager (agency) is struggling to find a place for me to go on Mondays and Tuesdays. I'm just happy the situation didn't take a turn for the worse.

Man, I sure am glad I'm not working for anybody that posted on this thread.

[auxitrooper]

The reason for at least one negative contact with a person on your site is because at some point they've had a run in with a security person with this mind set.

Thank you for working to promote professionalism in our field.

I would not fire you, I would put you at the lowest paying account I had and sit you outside a backdoor in the blistering sun on a crappy little stool checking employee badges.

[sgtnewby]

As for the rest of the posters, would you, to whom it may concern, want your young children exposed to what I have described in my first post? Or for you site supervisors out there - how would you feel if one of your male officers came to work in a dress and had lipstick on?

Regardless of wether or not I want my kids to see something like that, trying to hide it isn't going to make it go away. My wife and I don't believe in "sheltering" our kids from the differances in the world.

For example, we don't go to church, and I won't make my kids go to church either. But I would like for them, when they feel like it, to learn about several religions so that they can form their own opinion.

Another example would be teaching my kids about safe sex. Not talking about it, and only promoting abstinance, doesn't mean that they will wait until they're married, and never get pregnant or contract an STD.

As for a male employee showing up for work in a dress, we wear a uniform. So, as long as he wears his uniform while he is on the clock, and conducts himself in a proffesional manner, I could give 2 $h!+s about what he does off the clock. It's none of my business.

[Yardstick]

i'm pretty positive discriminatory behavior is grounds for termination. It doesn't seem like he would have much of a case.


He'd also have to hope his future employers don't call them and find out he he discriminates at work.

[craig333]

Considering he's LP its not likely he can afford to sue over the termination.

You need to keep in mind just how easily you can be replaced. Security Officers/LP are a dime a dozen no matter how good/valued you are. Plus, you're (most likely) an "at will" employee, they don't even need to say you fired over this incident.

It can be tough keeping your opinions to yourself. I'm not a gambler and when I was working at the casino there wasn't a day went by I wanted to ask someone why they were such an idiot, but I never did, never would. Its not my place.