Recently, lawyers representing former employees have been pushing the envelope in thinking of new ways to make employers pay big bucks. Fortunately, courts aren’t accepting some novel arguments, like the one in the following case.
Recent case: Anthony claimed he was fired for wanting to take time off to bond with his newborn child and care for his wife. He took another job, where he hurt himself. He claims that had he never been fired he would not have been working at the new job and would not have been injured.
Therefore, he told the court, he was due damages in addition to any damages owed him for not being allowed time off following his child’s birth.
The court tossed out the claim, reasoning that there was no direct connection between Anthony’s injury and his earlier discharge. (Blackburn v. Sturgeon, No. 1:13-cv-00054, ED CA, 2014)
- Proven way to win shaky bias suits: Be specific about reasons for discharge
- Worker sends complaint to HR? You must respond
- EEOC revises definition of 'timely' discrimination charge
- Taming your electronic records: Heed federal rules for email, IMs
- Supreme Court: One crude remark doesn't equal hostile environment