Subway Pretty Much Disgraces Itself

[BrassFusion]

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?coll=...02/3&page=1

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I notice they didn't interview anyone from Subway. Perhaps, he was fired for something else.

[BrassFusion]

The one I linked to was posted in feb. 2006... i'll admit that I only NOW found it online, but...

it's not pulpy and biographical.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

that looks more like an "89 and out" deal than anything else.

[Steven]

chicken bacon ranch.

mmmmmm

[BrassFusion]

that looks more like an "89 and out" deal than anything else.

Elaborate? I'm unfamiliar with the term and FAR too lazy to look it up.

chicken bacon ranch.

mmmmmm

Mmmm. Jared has Aides.

[Rayne]

chicken bacon ranch.

mmmmmm

Mmmmmm ....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

89 and out...

It's a crappy practice mostly used in manufactureing. 90 after hire.. your in... benefits and such.. and union membership if there is one. So, no matter how good the employee is... at 89 days you let them go so you can avoid the cost of paying for health insurance and other benefits.

[BrassFusion]

89 and out...

It's a crappy practice mostly used in manufactureing. 90 after hire.. your in... benefits and such.. and union membership if there is one. So, no matter how good the employee is... at 89 days you let them go so you can avoid the cost of paying for health insurance and other benefits.

Though it would be possible that's what they were going for, it would be very unlikely due to the success of his franchise. Also, in the article Ben linked to, they did admit it was strictly because he was HIV positive.

Edit: My bad. She admitted that according to the plaintiff- but she hasn't defended herself, has she?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Not that I can find. They have given no reason for letting him go. If the state in question is an "at will" state... they dont have too. Legally, not saying anything is their best stance in that case.

89 and out.. well, they dont give a fuck about how well you do the job for those... they want a body there and they dont care who it is.

[BrassFusion]

Not that I can find. They have given no reason for letting him go. If the state in question is an "at will" state... they dont have too. Legally, not saying anything is their best stance in that case.

89 and out.. well, they dont give a fuck about how well you do the job for those... they want a body there and they dont care who it is.

But didn't he own a franchise, as opposed to being an employee? Isn't there a big difference? Even if that's NOT the case, EVEN in at-will states, can't you get your ass sued right off for firing someone for the wrong reasons?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

They cant fire someone that does not work for them... If he owned the franchise they could only pull his franchise rights.

Yeah, if you can prove you were fired for someone reason that is illegal. In an at will state, such as the one we live in, you can get fired or quit a job without giving a reason or notice with no fear of reprocussions.

[BrassFusion]

They cant fire someone that does not work for them... If he owned the franchise they could only pull his franchise rights.

Yeah, if you can prove you were fired for someone reason that is illegal. In an at will state, such as the one we live in, you can get fired or quit a job without giving a reason or notice with no fear of reprocussions.

But if you feel you were fired based on sex, age, disability that doesn't affect your job, race, etc etc etc, you can sue in keeping up with the EEO thing... correct?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Sure, you can sue... but you would need proof of some kind to win. If they never say why you were fired... whats your proof? Feeling like you were discriminated against doesn;t stand up in court if you can't prove the feelings were valid.

[BrassFusion]

Sure, you can sue... but you would need proof of some kind to win. If they never say why you were fired... whats your proof? Feeling like you were discriminated against doesn;t stand up in court if you can't prove the feelings were valid.

True, but in THIS case, he asserts that she gave him the reason. Also, it was the day after they found out he had HIV. There are probably witnesses in the form of doctors who could testify to being part of the discussions they quoted in Ben's link.

They're probably gonna settle out of court, or considering how long ago this happened, maybe they already did.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

you can assert something all you want. REally REally believing something is not proof. Also, just because a doctor testifies that he gave a diagnosis the day before does not mean that it's the reason he was fired...

whats that thing you always say to me... causation.. corraltion...

PROVE that he was fired for having HIV... with real documented proof... then he wins.. without it all he has is his word and the fear of a bad reputation for Subway. If they dont give in to the fear they only need fear his proof.. and as long as all he has for proof is his word... he isn;t going to win.

[pomba gira]

But if you feel you were fired based on sex, age, disability that doesn't affect your job, race, etc etc etc, you can sue in keeping up with the EEO thing... correct?

Legally, yes, but... the only way it will actually happen is if you have fairly extensive documentation of overtly discriminatory things being said or done in the workplace, and/or at least a few other employees who are willing to speak out (and who make credible witnesses). No halfway-intelligent employer is going to give gender, race, or whatever as an official reason for firing someone, and "proving" discrimination as the real reason is pretty hard. Sometimes employers get nailed when someone is able to show a pattern of people from a certain group being fired for shaky reasons... but that's not much help to those first 10 or 30 poor slobs who got canned unjustly.

[BrassFusion]

you can assert something all you want. REally REally believing something is not proof. Also, just because a doctor testifies that he gave a diagnosis the day before does not mean that it's the reason he was fired...

whats that thing you always say to me... causation.. corraltion...

PROVE that he was fired for having HIV... with real documented proof... then he wins.. without it all he has is his word and the fear of a bad reputation for Subway. If they dont give in to the fear they only need fear his proof.. and as long as all he has for proof is his word... he isn;t going to win.

I'm not saying his assertion is evidence, in and of itself, but if it really happened and his HIV status is the ONLY reason he was fired, his team would probably be able to find enough evidence from other sources to make a case and cost Doctor's Associates some money.

And the defense would realize that.

Hence, settling out of court, OR giving him his franchise back.