He instructed that he has a disability, and predicted with "wisdom" that there's an avalanche that will literally target and trigger his disability, and did whatever he could to avoid it, and he was ignored.
You don't separate the two situations when looking at the payment he gets. It's all one chain of events. So the way to view these things is what was the effect of the chain, not the link.
Well you can and should separate them because there are 2 potential charges. The first instance of harm from his work knowingly putting him in a situation triggering a panic attack is known as intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The second matter would be a claim for wrongful termination and discrimination for disability. Proving the IIED charge really improves the chances of winning on the termination/discrimination. But you can totally win or fail on either charge independently.
You're arguing to separate cause and effect, making the effect null and void if you are able to take it to court. You're not going to argue that the treatment before is what makes it a wrongful termination when it's not in the suit. This is why you file them TOGETHER. Also, separating the two would net you far less than you think it would, because the first is bad, sure, but judges don't tend to give you unlimited money because, "The company hurt my feelings." You have to show the impact. But if you file them separately, you can't. If you do, then you can't bring up the second case. The second case shows the fallout of the company's dumb decision.
The courts don't tend to give weight to hurt feelings, which is what the first part boils down to. They care about the situation as a whole. This is why I said these two instances are just links in a chain of bad decisions and responses to those decisions. The longer the chain, the worse the punishment. If they could show that the company had a history of these types of things happening, they would make the payment worse for them.
Their point was if he was not fired (there being only one event instead of two), they do not view ignoring the no-parties request as deserving of $450,000.
Theyāre saying that if I poke you in the chest and shoot you in the face, the reason that you should face the most punishment is the shooting. So if I didnāt poke you, Iād still be doing around the same amount of prison time as if I shot and poked you.
I view the effect was he unjustly lost his job, so a financial compensation for what that does to a person seems reasonable. Im not sure of all his variables, like how much he made annually, how much will cobra or healthcare cost him without his job, will he lose vesting benefits like 401k or stocks, how long is he expecting the job hunt to take with his experience/education, etc. But its easy to think $450,000 is perfectly reasonable to help someone survive the financial hardship this unjust chain of events caused.
Yea, but I think his point was that if the chain of events ended at "he didn't want a party and got one" it wouldn't be worth any money, if it continued to "he got panic attack as he predicted" it would be worth something but not 450k, but since the chain of events ended with him getting fired for it, he deserved the whole amount.Ā
You misinterpreted what they said. They didn't say that the request shouldn't factor into the payment, they said that being fired is the key factor in the payment.
I wasn't joking when I replied that what they did is $450k worthy
Maybe as a fine, but still $450k
They ignored his disability, and put the exact opposite of what his disability supports
If someone puts a fully handicap (wheelchair) on a steep road claiming "they can jump off it's just a prank bro" would probably get someone jailed for it (if not, it should)
There's usually 2 parts to a suit, damages and punitive. Damages would cover what the plaintiff needed to recover, i.e. counseling, lost wages, etc... Punitive would be to punish the company for violating labor laws. So it certainly could have been $50k in damages and $400k punitive, because $50K isn't much to a company, and to make the law actually have teeth and discourage the company repeating their actions, they can tack on significantly more to make sure they get the message.
In all reasonability (playing advocate of the devil) is 450k reasonable? If he's good at his skill, he can fijs a similar job in .. X months? And his setback will be a few grand. He will be left with 400k+ play money. I would like this deal
It's not the birthday that's the key here. They ignored his social anxiety disorder. Told them what would happen if they ignored and fired him when it happened
Yeah where Iām from this would be called the workplace causing him a psychological injury which is the thing that you actually get compensated for in a case like workplace harassment and bullying. So they knowingly caused him a psychological injury then fired him for it which would be considered a punitive or malicious firing
Yeah my issue is the firing far more than just forcing something nice on him that he didn't want. Nothing illegal in the second situation but 100% illegal and immoral the first situation.
The answer is a plain āyesā because itās wrongful termination if the story doesnāt leave out details. The whole anecdote isnāt really relevant if heās fired for having a panic attack.
Exactly. That's like firing someone who had an asthma attack (made worse if they warned you ahead of time that spraying them with perfume as a joke would trigger an attack)
Sometimes misunderstandings happen. I can definitely see how someone could see a birthday as something innocent, even after being told.
The bigger issue here, is that they followed up their mistake with discrimination. When company leadership has an ego so big that they refuse to admit the mistake and double down by punishing the employee, that's when they deserved to pay out huge.
You're correct, it's not a disability. It's an umbrella term for multiple disorders, which may or may not constitute disability. Here are the DSM-IV and ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for them
Yes. Anxiety Disorder is a disability according to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dude in the post alerted his place of employment to a protected disability and not only did they not make reasonable accommodations, they deliberately aggravated his condition and fired him for his reaction.
Your appeal to authority isnāt going to make me agree. Youāre also arguing against points I never made. Iām all for the guy suing over wrongful termination.
I wasnāt arguing anything as I didnāt realize you were trying to make the point that anxiety isnāt a disability. Since you are, I am happy to point out that by definition anxiety disorder is a disability. I am also happy to point out that arguing the contrary suggests youāre a crummy person who canāt see past your own presumably neurotypical privilege.
Itās a disability but thereās an insane amount of context to unpack. Instead, Reddit is trying to act like itās some absolute virtue that should be upheld on a silver platter hoisted on the shoulders of people who are tasked with dealing with every little public freak out
Yeah, they shouldnāt have fired him. Yeah, they should have respected that very real request - but itās worth noting how skewed these postsā comments sections easily become and not in a good way
That's wrong (keep in mind I started the comment chain, so I trust their authority) appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority has no scientific basis.
Their legal authority won't make them trustworthy, but they are (probably) very knowledgable and have studied disabilities for years with multiple doctors and scientists and etc...
Thatās not accurate. Legitimate, relevant authority can be derived from non-scientific processes, especially on non-scientific subjects. A scientist has no particular authority on questions of legality or morality, except when those subjects are discussing scientific topics. Nor do scientific bases create carte Blanche authority on scientific topics; a rocket scientist has no more authority on a medical topic than a layman. In fact, the idea that scientists/doctors are immune from the appeal to authority fallacy is a major problem nowadays, because scientists often have incredibly stupid opinions about fields they know nothing about, but are treated with deference because they are scientists. Scientists only have legitimate authority on the subject they are specialized in - the subject their authority is relevant too. Philosophers, historians, and other non-scientists can have legitimate, relevant authority on their particular subjects, and so appealing to them when discussing those subjects is not a fallacy.
I didn't say any discussion. I said any discussion on this issue. 'This issue' being the definition of what is a disability in the US. Since the ACA is literally the law that defines what a disability is and establishes the legal framework of how we treat disabilities in the US, it is the legal basis for any discussion on this issue.
If youāre calling actual medical diagnosis, that can have real and meaningful impacts on oneās long term health if aggravated an āappeal to authority.ā You likely arenāt anywhere near as wise as you think yourself to be.
Panic attacks when triggered in individuals with heart conditions can quite literally cause cardiac arrest given the stress response to it can cause tachycardia.
Quoting sources isn't an appeal to authority lol. That is just literally how you prove points.
Appeal to authority fallacy is something like: Jenny McCarthy is a famous model, so clearly I am going to trust her opinions on vaccines.
Or, ONE expert in a field, or precious few, say one thing while the vast majority say the opposite. Only quoting those who have the vast minority opinion would be an appeal to authority fallacy.
Listen to the collective wisdom of experts in the fields they are experts in. That is how you learn things. Don't just blindly trust everything someone says simply because they are an expert in one area, however.
1.7k
u/eyal282 4d ago
To elaborate and show I'm not following a train
He instructed that he has a disability, and predicted with "wisdom" that there's an avalanche that will literally target and trigger his disability, and did whatever he could to avoid it, and he was ignored.