Portland bakery fires employees for denying black woman service after closing

[sneakypete]

@Jazzhead

You'd have to think creatively on this one.  As if you were a sleazy plaintiff's side civil rights lawyer trying to push the legal envelope.

@Maj. Bill Martin

I don't. As Detective Sgt Joe Friday used to say,"The facts,mam,just the facts".

And the FACTS in THIS case is someone was fired for alleged racism and discrimination against a black customer.

Tell me,what happens when you go to apply for a job somewhere. Don't they ask where you worked before,and what were the circumstances that led up to you no longer working there and applying for new job?

What do YOU think will happen when ANY commercial establishment learns that his potential new employee was fired for being a racist towards black customers? Wouldn't the new employer being opening himself and his business to future discrimination lawsuits by KNOWINGLY hiring a "racist" to deal with his customers?

I think you could make a non-frivolous argument that it is illegal to fire employees who refuse to treat white customers worse than black customers because of their race.  Because that is at least one way you could characterize their termination.  They were fired for not treating the later-arriving black customer better than the two white customers whom they already had turned away.

That too,but I see that as a sideshow "big picture" aspect,not as the personal damage it is.

In other words..they were fired for not discriminating.

[Suppressed]

Anyway, just twist the facts a bit.  A store has a policy of closing at 9 for black people, but 10 for white people.  Unlawful, right?  National outrage, even.

Now let's say it's not a policy, but just the store owner's practice.  Still unlawful.

BINGO!

Funny... Google now lists their closing time as 10 pm!  (Though their website says 9 pm.)

Here's the couple who owns it...
 
If they'll put writing on their cakes for some people, I wonder if they'd make a "God Hates bleep" cake.

[sneakypete]

Uh ... nope.  If it ain’t in a binding legal contract, or in state law, it ain’t a right.  It may be an expectation, and people may often only be let go for cause, but it isn’t a general right.

@Oceander

REALLY? An employer has a RIGHT to fire an employee for racism for following company policy,and as a result make that former employee virtually un-hireable as a result?

[GtHawk]

@Oceander

REALLY? An employer has a RIGHT to fire an employee for racism for following company policy,and as a result make that former employee virtually un-hireable as a result?

I know that in California, an at will state, you could fire someone easily enough but avoiding to pay unemployment was another thing entirely, I had to go to more than one hearing to fight the ex employee receiving unemployment. As to the matter of their reputation being destroyed I don't know, but I sure hope they can get the justice they deserve.

[Oceander]

@Oceander

REALLY? An employer has a RIGHT to fire an employee for racism for following company policy,and as a result make that former employee virtually un-hireable as a result?

An employer in an at-will employment relationship has the right to fire an employee for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all.  And an employers policy manual almost never gives the employee binding rights; at most, failure to follow the manual is grounds for termination, but following it doesn’t protect you from termination. 

If you don’t like it, either negotiate an employment agreement that limits the grounds on which you can be fired, or join a union that will. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Possibly.  Nonetheless, I wouldn’t wager the farm on winning.

Is that what a lawyer costs now?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Oceander
REALLY? An employer has a RIGHT to fire an employee for racism for following company policy,and as a result make that former employee virtually un-hireable as a result?

Wait a minute here.  You made a much broader statement earlier on, and that's the one that knowledgeable people are criticizing.  Here it is:

@Oceander

REALLY? An employer has a RIGHT to fire an employee for racism for following company policy,and as a result make that former employee virtually un-hireable as a result?

Wait a minute here.  People were replying to a specific statement you made, and now you're critcizing their responses to a different point you're trying to make now.  Here's the original statement you made that was incorrect, and that people have been criticizing:

@Jazzhead

Become a bee in the hive? A part of the collective?

<NOPE>,COMRADE!

AND.....,people have a right to assume they won't be fired without cause. It's part of the civil contract that greases the skids of civilization.

That's is flatly wrong as a statement of law, unless you have specific union or civil service protections that provide for only just cause discharge.  But the general statement of law is that you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, except one specifically prohibited by law.

[WingNot]

BINGO!

Funny... Google now lists their closing time as 10 pm!  (Though their website says 9 pm.)

Here's the couple who owns it...
 
If they'll put writing on their cakes for some people, I wonder if they'd make a "God Hates bleep" cake.

Nice couple.  Bet they will make someone a nice wife.

[Free Vulcan]

Employment at Will

The common law rule regarding the employer-employee relationship allows the termination of the relationship by either party, without notice and without cause.
 
Oregon courts have long followed this general rule of "at-will" employment. This means that generally, in the absence of a contract or statute to the contrary, Oregon employers may discharge an employee at any time and for any reason, or for no reason at all. Simpson v. Western Graphics, 293 Or 96, 99, 643 P2d 1276 (1982); Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or 210, 216, 536 P2d 512 (1975).
 
Most employers choose to reserve the right to employ at will with specific language in personnel policies.
 
Example: "We reserve the right to employ at will. This means that employment can be terminated, with or without cause, and with or without notice, at any time, at the option of the company or at the option of the employee."
 
To maintain at-will status, it´s wise for employers to indicate that policies are merely guidelines and are not to be construed as a contract.
 
Example: "These policies are not to be construed as a contract of employment. We expressly reserve the right to change, add to, or delete policies at any time. Changes will be effective on dates determined by the company, and you may not rely on policies that have been superseded. No supervisor or manager other than our Chief Executive Officer, Beau Lee, has authority to alter the policies, and all such changes must be in writing."
 
Declaring and retaining at-will status provides an employer greater flexibility in the workplace, but being an at-will employer is not a cure-all or a substitute for establishing clear policies, keeping thorough documentation, and applying consistent disciplinary practices.
 
Since organizations that employ individuals at will may still be called upon to defend various types of employment claims in court or before state or federal agencies, prudent at-will employers will maintain records showing a legitimate business reason for any important personnel action.

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/TA/pages/t_faq_employmentatwill.aspx

[Smokin Joe]

Unbelievable.   

The question, and the standard which should apply, is "Would the same employees have been fired for having denied service to a white woman after they were closed?"

If not, then this is an improper termination. (Not to mention being "Closed" is meaningless.)