s/o do employers risk being sued?

[Anonymous]

I work for a company that follows the federal government with respect to weather closing, and also has a very generous telework policy anyway, so is used to most employees working remotely at least once a week though many do more.

I guess I don't understand how an employer can "make" staff stay? If someone gets an accident on the way home and they present evidence they wanted to leave and were threatened with consequences if not, I guess I don't understand how that flies.

I do get not paying someone (like an hourly employer) but I guess with professional office work, I don't see how the employer is not putting themselves at risk. Thanks for any insight, and please be kind. This is a serious question. I have heard of people suing for a lot stupider reasons.

[Anonymous]

They can't make you stay, but they can fire you if you leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They can't make you stay, but they can fire you if you leave.

This. You choose.

[Anonymous]

- they can't make you stay
- they can fire you for leaving
- they would be taking risk if an employee was treated in a manner inconsistent with stated policy
- most managers don't think that way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They can't make you stay, but they can fire you if you leave.

Right, but why wouldn't someone sue for that? I guess I have seen people sue for dumber things. I had a friend sue because she was fired during maternity leave. Her lawyer said she didn't have a case, but that the company handled it so poorly they would likely chicken out and settle. They did and she got a better package. Not saying that is right or wrong, and I have never sued, I'm just saying people sue and am surprised employers aren't scared of this.

[Anonymous]

I'll add that the suing really only becomes plausible if something actually happens.

[Anonymous]

Please stop saying "you". I'm at home today, and not working. This is a spin off of the other ongoing thread about employer being made to stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll add that the suing really only becomes plausible if something actually happens.

What about distress for taking 8 hours to get home? Or something like that. How can something NOT happen frankly. Leaving the city at 3, people are going to be screwed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can't make you stay, but they can fire you if you leave.

Right, but why wouldn't someone sue for that? I guess I have seen people sue for dumber things. I had a friend sue because she was fired during maternity leave. Her lawyer said she didn't have a case, but that the company handled it so poorly they would likely chicken out and settle. They did and she got a better package. Not saying that is right or wrong, and I have never sued, I'm just saying people sue and am surprised employers aren't scared of this.

Maternity is a protected class suit - that's different. An employee could sue for wrongful termination here, citing perhaps treatment inconsistent with stated policy, but it would be an uphill battle. Odds are the company would point to a pattern of issues, rather than this single instance, and they'd not need litigate in an at will environment.

Source: I'm good at making shit up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll add that the suing really only becomes plausible if something actually happens.

What about distress for taking 8 hours to get home? Or something like that. How can something NOT happen frankly. Leaving the city at 3, people are going to be screwed.

Lol... Please sue for distress and then come back and tell us how that went.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll add that the suing really only becomes plausible if something actually happens.

What about distress for taking 8 hours to get home? Or something like that. How can something NOT happen frankly. Leaving the city at 3, people are going to be screwed.

Lol... Please sue for distress and then come back and tell us how that went.

People have sued (and won) for a lot dumber.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll add that the suing really only becomes plausible if something actually happens.

What about distress for taking 8 hours to get home? Or something like that. How can something NOT happen frankly. Leaving the city at 3, people are going to be screwed.

Lol... Please sue for distress and then come back and tell us how that went.

People have sued (and won) for a lot dumber.

Examples, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll add that the suing really only becomes plausible if something actually happens.

What about distress for taking 8 hours to get home? Or something like that. How can something NOT happen frankly. Leaving the city at 3, people are going to be screwed.

Lol... Please sue for distress and then come back and tell us how that went.

People have sued (and won) for a lot dumber.

Examples, please.

This is great if you have a few minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuvyHr9ZmGY

One woman made millions when she got tripped by a toddler in a furniture store and hurt her ankle. She was the mother of the toddler.

One woman's family made $65 million because their daughter got drunk, drove her car into a lake, and died. They sued Honda for making a seat belt their drunk daughter couldn't get out of it underwater.

And so on....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can't make you stay, but they can fire you if you leave.

Right, but why wouldn't someone sue for that? I guess I have seen people sue for dumber things. I had a friend sue because she was fired during maternity leave. Her lawyer said she didn't have a case, but that the company handled it so poorly they would likely chicken out and settle. They did and she got a better package. Not saying that is right or wrong, and I have never sued, I'm just saying people sue and am surprised employers aren't scared of this.

Maternity is a protected class suit - that's different. An employee could sue for wrongful termination here, citing perhaps treatment inconsistent with stated policy, but it would be an uphill battle. Odds are the company would point to a pattern of issues, rather than this single instance, and they'd not need litigate in an at will environment.

Source: I'm good at making shit up

Hahahahahaha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work for a company that follows the federal government with respect to weather closing, and also has a very generous telework policy anyway, so is used to most employees working remotely at least once a week though many do more.

I guess I don't understand how an employer can "make" staff stay? If someone gets an accident on the way home and they present evidence they wanted to leave and were threatened with consequences if not, I guess I don't understand how that flies.

I do get not paying someone (like an hourly employer) but I guess with professional office work, I don't see how the employer is not putting themselves at risk. Thanks for any insight, and please be kind. This is a serious question. I have heard of people suing for a lot stupider reasons.

It depends on the state, In some states, worker's comp is portal to portal, so an accident would be covered under the company's worker's compensation.