Remix clone Hacker News

> The burden of proof in constructive dismissal cases lies with the employee.

The only practical way is if somehow an executive breaks ranks and exposes some list or email or private conversation where he they were planning this.

A harder way is some coordinating action from employees. All get together to figure out the patterns.

▲

dghlsakjg a day ago | parent | next [-]

It depends on the state, but you don’t have to prove intent, you have to prove that the conditions of your job changed enough that it is an unreasonable burden.

If they transfer you to a location that requires an additional hour of commuting, you just have to prove that the commute takes an extra hour.

▲

rdtsc a day ago | parent [-]

> If they transfer you to a location that requires an additional hour of commuting, you just have to prove that the commute takes an extra hour.

Oh that’s easy to prove. But then what? Does your employment contract prohibit commutes.

▲

dghlsakjg 9 hours ago | parent [-]

No. The government authority in charge of employment decides whether that change is enough of a change of the original job that it constitutes constructive dismissal.

If so, you can quit your job and are eligible for unemployment and any other legal benefits of having been fired without cause, and a claim is put against the employers account in the unemployment system.

▲

rdtsc 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh for unemployment sure, but the claim here is that the person hired under a DEI initiative is now let go, but under a different scheme of “restructuring”. Now their job would be to find redress and either reverse that or win monetary damages. It’s not impossible but it’s an uphill battle unless someone find a written directive somewhere a red flag. Or all the terminated employees somewhere coordinate to prove a particular pattern.

	▲	dghlsakjg 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I wasn’t commenting on that case. Constructive dismissal is irrelevant in that instance if you have been let go since you don’t have to prove that your job was changed if it no longer exists. Also, it is perfectly legal to terminate someone in most of the US under a restructure. My original response was just pointing out that proving constructive dismissal doesn’t have to do with the intent of the employer, merely the effect of those actions. In your original example the employer can’t pretend that asking someone to commute to Alaska three days a week is reasonable and therefore they weren’t fired without cause when they refuse to do that.

▲

freejazz a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Juries are allowed to infer intent. They do not need an explicit statement admitting it.

To be honest, I find it very weird that you quoted that part and had the response you did as if you knew what you were talking about. By your logic, intent would essentially be impossible to prove in just about any circumstance. Obviously, that's not true. In reality, there's tons of caselaw about when intent can be inferred by a jury for any claim requiring intent.

▲

rdtsc a day ago | parent [-]

> To be honest, I find it very weird that you quoted that part and had the response you did as if you knew what you were talking about.

Well honesty is always key, I find.

> Obviously, that's not true. In reality, there's tons of caselaw about when intent can be inferred by a jury for any claim requiring intent.

By one juror or two, and if the defense lawyers are dummies and fail to do their job. Corporations like IBM have lawyers on retainer and they are not that incompetent.

It will be hard to infer intent if the defense can present some evidence of “increased efficiency”, “working together” and “consolidating”. Without a smoking gun piece of evidence proving the contrary it would be an uphill battle, especially for one individual plaintiff.

▲

freejazz 19 hours ago | parent [-]

>By one juror or two, and if the defense lawyers are dummies and fail to do their job. Corporations like IBM have lawyers on retainer and they are not that incompetent.

What do you mean by one juror or two? My point is regarding when juries are legally allowed to make an intent determination. It often does not require a specific expression of intent and instead can be inferred from activities that indicate things like reckless behavior and disregard for the potential that they do the unlawful thing.

>It will be hard to infer intent if the defense can present some evidence of “increased efficiency”, “working together” and “consolidating”. Without a smoking gun piece of evidence proving the contrary it would be an uphill battle, especially for one individual plaintiff.

No, that's just a defense which might not cut against the inference at all.

>Do you speak for all jurors?

No, you seem to be confused about the evidence a court allows a jury to rely on when it makes a state-of-mind determination in civil suits. My reading of your post was that you suggested it required an express claim regarding intent. That is not the case, legally. Maybe you didn't realize that and were just posting layman stuff, which is understandable. It's not just a reflection of legal reality.

I don't think that you appreciate the typical legal procedure is that before any fact-question is presented to the jury, parties move based upon the available evidence, whether or not there is sufficient facts presented to warrant a fact-decider's decision. This occurs prior to trial at the summary judgment stage and after evidence is presented at trial. So there is often a legal boundary as to what evidence a jury can consider when it comes to any fact question (i.e. did this party have intent? did this party do the thing? etc)

	▲	rdtsc 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> What do you mean by one juror or two? My point is regarding when juries are legally allowed to make an intent determination. It often does not require a specific expression of intent and instead can be inferred from activities that indicate things like reckless behavior and disregard for the potential that they do the unlawful thing. The point is the defense can show loads of documents about how working together increases efficiency, how they are streamlining units and they plaintiff has to prove they were targeted as an ex-DEI hire and even though there is just hunch. I don’t know about other countries but that’s how it works in US. Worker protection here is very weak. There are protected categories but they’d have the burden of proof they were let go specifically because of their protected category. > I don't think that you appreciate the typical legal procedure is that before any fact-question is presented to the jury, parties move based upon the available evidence, whether or not there is sufficient facts presented to warrant a fact-decider's decision Exactly, moreover jurors would be instructed to make up their mind based on the presented evidence. One side will have papers and the other will have read-between-lines hunches. Sure jurors can still do whatever but unless they’re all activist jurors they will just go with whatever side is more convincing and the evidence they have been presented.