TexasCHLforum.com

I was under the impression that in the state of Texas one could be fired with no cause given because we are a right to work state. Of course, that would negate the statements to TWC. Sounds like a load of horse manure from the company. Good luck with your case. But, be aware that between y'all and the company there are lawyers who are now gonna get rich off of you.


Wysiwyg101
(Wishin I had some great advice for y'all)

Wysiwyg101 wrote:I was under the impression that in the state of Texas one could be fired with no cause given because we are a right to work state. Wysiwyg101

This is true, but the OP's contention is that he was fired because he said that he was going to report an illegal activity, i.e. overweight shipments. That is the premise of their "Sabine Pilot" lawsuit. I don't know if anyone will "get rich" but hopefully the OP will be able to recover lost wages and other damages.

Wysiwyg101 wrote:I was under the impression that in the state of Texas one could be fired with no cause given because we are a right to work state.

You are correct, but companies make mistakes all the time and state why someone is being fired and sometimes it is not the real reason and wasn't properly documented. That's where they can get in trouble. Or it can be for one of the reasons that someone can't be fired for.

Wysiwyg101 wrote:I was under the impression that in the state of Texas one could be fired with no cause given because we are a right to work state.

Just to be technically correct, the right to work part has nothing to do with being fired. Texas is an at-will employment state, which means that employment can be terminated at any time by either party with no cause. The exceptions are contracts and public policy. If the employment is by contract, termination may result in a breach of contract suit. If the termination is for a reason that is a violation of public policy, then it is illegal and you can sue for wrongful termination. The most common example of public policy is the laws prohibiting discrimination. If you are fired based on one of the protected classes (race, religion, gender, age over 40, etc.), this is subject to a lawsuit.

Of course, in most cases it is up to you to prove why you were fired. If the employer is very smart, they will never give you a reason, instead just saying that your services are no longer needed. Now it is up to you to prove the reason is a violation of the public policy. If they are dumb enough (IMO) to make up a reason and then tell you why you were fired for it, then it becomes much easier. You can just prove the stated reason was false and allege that the true reason was the public policy violation. Now they have to prove otherwise and it gets harder to convince people once they have been shown to be a liar.

The right to work part is a true statement, but it has to do with closed shops and union dues. Texas has outlawed closed union shops or forcing people to join a union to work. This is why they call it a right to work state. You have the right to find a job without being forced to pay a union for the ability to work. Both of these laws reflect the pro-business orientation of the state, IMO.

srothstein wrote:Of course, in most cases it is up to you to prove why you were fired. If the employer is very smart, they will never give you a reason, instead just saying that your services are no longer needed. Now it is up to you to prove the reason is a violation of the public policy. If they are dumb enough (IMO) to make up a reason and then tell you why you were fired for it, then it becomes much easier. You can just prove the stated reason was false and allege that the true reason was the public policy violation. Now they have to prove otherwise and it gets harder to convince people once they have been shown to be a liar.

What if they say it's because the employee had a gun, and they called 911, and the cops came, and the employee did have a gun? Even if he wasn't breaking the law, aren't the police witnesses the employee really did have a gun?

Yes, Ameer, the cops would then be witnesses. The question is if that would be a violation of public policy or not. At this time, this is not a violation of public law and that would be a valid reason for firing someone. It is possible that at some point in the future (say Sep. 1, 2011) this would not be true in certain circumstances (say the gun was in your car and the parking lot bills pass). If that does come about, thent he cops would be witnesses on your side for wrongful termination.

UPDATE: Did a deposition on an old manager there and he admitted to no policy against guns until 3 days after this person was fired

TxBlonde wrote:UPDATE: Did a deposition on an old manager there and he admitted to no policy against guns until 3 days after this person was fired

Interesting. Thanks for the update. Keep us posted.

TxBlonde wrote:UPDATE: Did a deposition on an old manager there and he admitted to no policy against guns until 3 days after this person was fired

Amazing.

I know now to tell a judge that
There new tactic is they fired him because they think the old Article 4413 (29ee) posted at another building they leased at the time and the sign was there before they occupied it. (I know no bearing on who put it there) They think it is the Proper 30.06 Sign.

TxBlonde wrote:I know now to tell a judge that
There new tactic is they fired him because they think the old Article 4413 (29ee) posted at another building they leased at the time and the sign was there before they occupied it. (I know no bearing on who put it there) They think it is the Proper 30.06 Sign.

Interesting. IANAL, but I would think that only the person in control of the property could post an enforcable sign. For example, I could go to any building of my choosing and post a 30.06 sign meeting the legal language and size requirements, but I don't believe it would be valid unless I controlled the property.

WildBill wrote:

TxBlonde wrote:I know now to tell a judge that
There new tactic is they fired him because they think the old Article 4413 (29ee) posted at another building they leased at the time and the sign was there before they occupied it. (I know no bearing on who put it there) They think it is the Proper 30.06 Sign.

Interesting. IANAL, but I would think that only the person in control of the property could post an enforcable sign. For example, I could go to any building of my choosing and post a 30.06 sign meeting the legal language and size requirements, but I don't believe it would be valid unless I controlled the property.

So, are you saying if you leased a building with a valid 30.06 sign in place, and you wanted the place 30.06 posted, you'd have to remove the old (perfectly valid) sign and replace it with a new one to be enforceable?

Ok what is IANAL

TxBlonde wrote:Ok what is IANAL

It is the standard disclaimer: "I Am Not A Lawyer", so I can not provide legal advice.

TxBlonde wrote:Ok what is IANAL

"I Am Not A Lawyer"