Trans woman sues Sam's Club over alleged discrimination

[TobinL]

@Avery_Thorn

The more professional the HR department, the more vague they are going to be about why someone was terminated

Or how well they did if they left of their own accord even. Most big companies simply respond with “yes they worked here” and nothing else.

[redesigned]

@beschizza

Policy for what? his issue is about PR (a reporter called about Mr. Formerlyhere). You’re talking, I think, about HR (a cop, college or employer is calling about Mr. Formerlyhere)

Uh oh…walmarts policy, you don’t think they decide these things willy nilly on a whim case by case do you?
They go by the book, hence that term.

Corporations like walmart have official policies about termination disclosures that affect all departments, including HR and PR. PR would be much less permissive for disclosures for legal reasons, not more.

@beschizza

Yet, that’s exactly what Sams Club did! They told a reporter someone was fired for “performance reasons”

No. “performance reasons” is the same as “for cause”, it isn’t a specific thing. it is standard corporate language.

@beschizza

I suppose you are suggesting that it would generate liability to give specific truthful reasons for firing someone, but not generate liability to give a vague insinuation of negative performance.

BINGO. Exactly how the law works here. You can say it was for a reason, but not give the specific reason. Companies can fire at will, simply saying they have a reason, that is protected by federal law, but as soon as a specific reason is given then it can be challenged, and protections and liabilities laws come into play.

@beschizza

And in this context, there’s little to lose in disclosing a specific reason

There is a ton to lose if you understand how things work over here.

Walmart not disclosing this information via PR is standard, if they did disclose it that would be quite shocking. What is disclosed in court is entirely different. Even a lot of these recent high profile sexual misconduct firings have officially been for “performance reasons”. This is how it works in corporate america.

I don’t know what to tell ya, maybe someone who works with corporate policy would be able to better explain how this works here?

[beschizza]

@redesigned

@rob

Policy for what? his issue is about PR (a reporter called about Mr. Formerlyhere). You’re talking, I think, about HR (a cop, college or employer is calling about Mr. Formerlyhere)

Uh oh…walmarts policy, you don’t think they decide these things willy nilly on a whim case by case do you?

They go by the book, hence that term.

There are policies for what HR would say about a former employee and there are policies for what PR would say about a plaintiff during litigation. This doesn’t mean cases are decided “willy nilly on a whim,” just that big companies have what a developer might recognize as a separation of concerns.

@redesigned

@rob

I suppose you are suggesting that it would generate liability to give specific truthful reasons for firing someone, but not generate liability to give a vague insinuation of negative performance.

BINGO. Exactly how the law works here

Most corporate policies limit responses to employment confirmation, but in statute there’s generally no trouble giving true facts or opinions about an employee. Case law, though, warns against implying facts: broad hints that you know a reasonable person could draw false conclusions from.

In practice, nothing is disclosed because litigation is cheap for plaintiffs and very expensive for defendants.Only false statements of fact are subject to defamation claims, but why invite the cost of showing you didn’t make one?

So both facts and insinuations are problematic, but the latter moreso.

(Again, none of this matters much in this case because it’s not HR responding to a reference check with an eye to avoiding litigation, it’s a PR flack talking to the press about someone who is already suing them.)

I’m not a lawyer, but was a court reporter for years – and a PR guy – so am familiar with the relevant corporate doxa and the legal disasters they suffer as a result. Perhaps you can go fish out “someone who works with corporate policy” – we can discuss why they are paid better than me, but gizzle lipitor at breakfast.

[the_borderer]

@redesigned

No. “performance reasons” is the same as “for cause”, it isn’t a specific thing. it is standard corporate language.

Still, from my perspective from the other side of the pond, “performance reasons” looks a lot like “Fit in or fuck off” in this particular case. I expect Walmart would be looking for an out of court settlement right now if it had happened at an ASDA in the UK and not a Sam’s Club in North Carolina.

[beschizza]

@the_borderer

Still, from my perspective from the other side of the pond, “performance reasons” looks a lot like “Fit in or fuck off” in this particular case

Exactly so. I don’t know if it’s a Title VII claim but that “performance reasons” quote has me thinking it must be. Raising media eyebrows when they should just shut their mouths.

Also, the best thing about this thread is people making oblique rerefences to me being British and sighingly explaining US employment law basics to me.

[redesigned]

Basically either…

You are claiming: Walmart is specifically withholding details on this one case, which you also claim increases their liability and that the reason they’d do this is most likely that the facts are damning.

…or…

I am claiming: Walmart is withholding the details based on standard corporate policy not related to anything specific to this case, and they are doing that to reduce liability and for legal protection.

I know which one Occam would pick, but that is the distillation of the disagreement and the only thing i’ve refuted.

@beschizza

I’m afraid we’re having our HR cake and eating PR too.

@beschizza

There are policies for what HR would say about a former employee and there are policies for what PR would say about a plaintiff during litigation.

Legal would be the ones making the call about what is said about a plaintiff during litigation in court, not PR or HR. Once Legal is involved they direct and inform all statements by both PR and HR, so as you put it, you are eating the wrong dish.

BACK to the point, they are leaving out the details for legal reasons, period, as is their standard policy. This is not unusual but rather normal, and is no indication about the relevance of the case, contrary to your claim. That is the only point i’m making and it seems to be getting lost in this back and forth.

@beschizza

Most corporate policies limit responses to employment confirmation, but in statute there’s generally no trouble giving true facts or opinions about an employee. Case law, though, warns against implying facts: broad hints that you know a reasonable person could draw false conclusions from.

Only false statements of fact are subject to defamation claims, but why invite the cost of showing you didn’t make one?

Not in the USA when it comes to termination. I think that is your main point of confusion. In the USA there is federal laws that protect the right of companies to terminate at will and below that there are several laws protecting against certain reasons for termination. At the state level there are all sorts of employee protections, including tons and tons of laws protecting against wrongful terminations etc.

The company is protected under federal law to terminate at will, and can state if it is “for cause” or “performance related” but as soon as the company makes any statement about specific reasons, whether PR, HR, Legal, whatever, they immediately lose that protection are are suddenly exposed to multiple lines of legal attack they were previously protected against. You seem to be arguing to vague slander/libel reasoning without understanding american employment law. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@beschizza

So both facts and insinuations are problematic, but the latter moreso.

In base libel or slander cases perhaps that is true, not in discrimination or termination cases, those are the opposite.

@beschizza

Perhaps you can go fish out “someone who works with corporate policy”

Yes, that is what I’d recommend, talk to a professional in the field. Anyone who works in this field could explain how things work over here much more quickly and simply than I can, and could confirm how completely standard this is.

[redesigned]

@the_borderer

Still, from my perspective from the other side of the pond

Totally. It is very different in both countries assuming you are referring to the UK. I can see how coming from one legal system one could make assumptions that make sense under one and not the other.

I’ve spent my entire life working for corporations in the USA and still my eyes go cross trying to understand all the differences that affect our employees in the EU, we had to hire lawyers specifically versed in the differences in international laws to draft everything up properly.