[v74ClzKY]

Again, Gordo has no real under standing of the law. He can pretend all he wants, but it shows in his posts. He fails to grasp how difficult it may be to prove constructive discharge when he hasn't even read the case/cases he cites himself. Also he is from New Zeland, while a common law country, his only knowledge of American law is what he gathers from Wikipedia.

[casinobonbone]

Again, Gordo has no real under standing of the law. He can pretend all he wants, but it shows in his posts. He fails to grasp how difficult it may be to prove constructive discharge when he hasn't even read the case/cases he cites himself. Also he is from New Zeland, while a common law country, his only knowledge of American law is what he gathers from Wikipedia.

I'm afraid this is right Gordo. Successfully claiming wrongful dismissal is an exhaustive task and unless you're an employment lawyer it's really not a good idea to tell people what's what on the subject.

[jadabaad]

Yeah, pursuing any sort of legal harassment really isn't worth my time, even if it makes his life frustrating. I just can't stand douchebags.

It's not a chain, it's a locally owned restaurant. We actually have them cater a lot of work things. At work we had a meeting to discuss where we were going. It was between that place and the local seafood place. I'll be enjoying fish next week.

I'm afraid this is right Gordo. Successfully claiming wrongful dismissal is an exhaustive task and unless you're an employment lawyer it's really not a good idea to tell people what's what on the subject. Although it is made easier under the ADA. Although there has been a lot of conflicting case law regarding Title VII and harassment. The job was **** anyway. She can actually make more money by NOT working and claiming disability. Obviously that's not her goal in life, but in this circumstance working at that **** hole was the responsible thing to do, by being employed, but not the most financially smart thing to do.

[AK47rulz]

Yeah, pursuing any sort of legal harassment really isn't worth my time, even if it makes his life frustrating. I just can't stand douchebags.

It's not a chain, it's a locally owned restaurant. We actually have them cater a lot of work things. At work we had a meeting to discuss where we were going. It was between that place and the local seafood place. I'll be enjoying fish next week.



Although it is made easier under the ADA. Although there has been a lot of conflicting case law regarding Title VII and harassment. The job was **** anyway. She can actually make more money by NOT working and claiming disability. Obviously that's not her goal in life, but in this circumstance working at that **** hole was the responsible thing to do, by being employed, but not the most financially smart thing to do.

I'm glad a logical conclusion was reach. Best of luck to her in the future.

[pimbertiemoft]

Haha. Gordo is so full of crap.


AGAIN, he acts like he knows what he talks about, when in fact he doesn't know at all. He is going to argue with Freelancer about law? Some old dude from New Zealand is going to argue against a certified lawyer about law in the US?

Give it up.

[KinicsBonee]

I would say just move on and put that place behind you. It's not worth it maybe file a compliant about that person to somebody. I have feeling that you and your gf have different ideas about that job if she felt it was okay to eat there maybe to annoy them or just a lunch. So ask her what she thought about it since all I saw was your side of story.

[Ikhqgvas]

Haha. Gordo is so full of crap.


AGAIN, he acts like he knows what he talks about, when in fact he doesn't know at all. He is going to argue with Freelancer about law? Some old dude from New Zealand is going to argue against a certified lawyer about law in the US?

Give it up.

I learned something new today: Internet colleges create "certified" lawyers.

BTW, if Gordo's understanding of law is anything like physics (read: wiki), then I completely understand the legal types here.

[XVzrlWIv]

So, having re-read what I wrote, and the responses, it's clear you guys aremore concerned with being smartasses than reading what I actually wrote.

I suggest you do so - then respond to what was written.

To summarise - some states have legislation where one can sue is one has resigned because of 'constructive dismissal' or 'constructive discharge'. Some states have legislation, or policies, that allow 'constructive dismissal' or 'constructive discharge' to be taken into account when assessing benefits/allowances, etc, for unemployment and in such cases it is not classed as a 'voluntery resignation'.
I also recommended the OP's girlfriend get legal advice and suggested contacting local organisations for the deaf as, if the abuse was directed at her because of her deafness (as it clearly seems to be), then it may be a discrimination case.
i also agreed it may not be worth it.

So, either critique my previous comments, or the summery - or shut the ****up [yawn]

[Txaizdxx]

So, having re-read what I wrote, and the responses, it's clear you guys aremore concerned with being smartasses than reading what I actually wrote.

I suggest you do so - then respond to what was written.

To summarise - some states have legislation where one can sue is one has resigned because of 'constructive dismissal' or 'constructive discharge'. Some states have legislation, or policies, that allow 'constructive dismissal' or 'constructive discharge' to be taken into account when assessing benefits/allowances, etc, for unemployment and in such cases it is not classed as a 'voluntery resignation'.
I also recommended the OP's girlfriend get legal advice and suggested contacting local organisations for the deaf as, if the abuse was directed at her because of her deafness (as it clearly seems to be), then it may be a discrimination case.
i also agreed it may not be worth it.

So, either critique my previous comments, or the summery - or shut the ****up [yawn]

I think the point is Gordo, that you seem to read something on the internet and then act like an authority on the subject.

Nothing wrong with discussing any subject, as long as you don't think you've learned everything after a quick Google. Remember, most things on the internet are just someone else's opinion.

[casinobonusa]

To revisit this issue with you.

You know absolutely nothing of the law and how it works here. Unless Rainwind resides in California that case has absolutely no bearing on anything. Just to inform you, the case you cited overturned a prior ruling of summary judgment, it did not actually rule on the original claim. Also if you actually read the case (which clearly you didn't) you would've realized that the circumstances in that case are wildly different than Rainwind's.

I started the initial thread, that you're responding to, with "No idea what the legislation is like over there, down here tha[t]'d still be actionable as it'd be called, IIRC, "Constructive Dismissal" - just checked* and that's correct [edit - in New Zealand]- it can also be applied in the US according to this" and gave the quote, a quote that evidently should hve been abreviated to the highlighted section below.
No arguments about the application of most aspects of the Law in the US of A, but you clearly didn't read the quote I used - it started with "United States law In the United States, constructive discharge has differing meanings depending on the jurisdiction.", then gave an example of a Californian case. I neither said nor implied that it was applicable outside California - as an aside, I have considerable distaste for a system that appears to be more concerned in following precidents set by a different set of people and under different circumstances.

Any half-way decent lawyer would be able to destroy Rainwind's case according to the above elements of constructive dismissal coupled with actual knowledge of the case you cited and what Rainwind has told us of the situation. Gordo please refrain from offering legal advice, especially legal advice you recently obtained from wikipedia. I've seen lawyers cite wikipedia in their motions and briefings, it never goes over well for them.

We don't know the full set of circumstances or whether the parties would have a better or less than a 'half decent lawyer' - you've the professional experience to make the call based on the californian and, no doubt, other cases, so I'm happy to cede that to you.

Again Rainwind, pursuing a legal solution to this case would prove to be very costly and a significant waste of time for a low paying job. If it was an office environment or a salaried position under contract then you might have something to go on about, but not a waitress. I'm assuming she was a waitress as its a restaurant.

As I said in an earlier post, I agree with you.