Insufficient evidence of general bad behavior
from
The Employment Act aims to determine how staff members are connected to each other. Although there are economic laws, yes, and even some economic laws, such as securities law and anti-monopoly law, in general, legal work is not micro, but macro. The focus of the employment law is on the most important macro issues that society determines. It does not touch on the micro issues of how the business operates. But when an employee crosses the boundaries through discrimination or harassment, he or she has the right to run a business anyway.
The macro issues of the employment law are discrimination, whistleblower protection, safe working conditions, workers and workers. Compensation and payment protection. Other things that an employer may do depend largely on the employer. Whether you agree to politics or not, the California Labor Law defines the starting point for employment as the right of any party to end employment at will. Historically, the court defined this "arbitrary" as one of the arbitration privileges for withdrawal or dismissal. But the "let go" judicial policy is limited to micro issues. When it comes to discrimination, whistle-blowing by whistle-blowers, failure to pay wages in time, failure to provide safe working conditions or other statutory protections listed, the court basically states that the "arbitrary" rule does not apply.
Motivation proof - hard but possible
from
The "cause" of the employer's decision to terminate the employee is like a gun, which has never been seen in the shooting, but only in the subsequent smell of smoke. Like all cases in which suspects are asked, motivation is at the core. I always say that employers always have an employer who is not at the crime scene. The employee either a] just didn't measure it; or b] was a terrible employee; or c] was a good employee, but we had to let her leave as part of the layoffs.
There are two kinds of evidence that employees are not suitable for the job: objective and subjective. Objective evidence is usually more reliable, such as sales bleak. However, subjective factors may be persuasive if the testimony is overwhelming and reliable and no one can support the employee. Almost as much as the absence of evidence, the employer would round up a group of horrible incumbents to repeat the partisan route: I found it difficult to work with the plaintiff.
Does this mean that only good people can win litigation? Sometimes a difficult employee is also dismissed as a pregnant woman because she needs to take a vacation to become pregnant. Sometimes, a negative employee with an attitude is African-American because she is African-American. Sometimes, the employee who enters the wrong data in the bid proposal is a 62-year-old employee, because the young boss thinks he is too old for the job and will be fired. The key is that human motivation is a mixture of emotions. How does the jury distinguish bad management from illegal management?
This situation is reminiscent of the 2016 presidential election. According to political authorities, it believes that the public views the two candidates in an unfavourable manner. However, if a voter sees that the two candidates also dislike, but the determined candidate Clinton is not qualified because of a woman? There are two considerations here: a] the voters are reasonably unwilling to see, admit or accept his gender bias, and b] unconscious bias actually has an impact. In other words, the voter's prejudice is the "substantial incentive" he voted for Trump. If the jury has 12 Trump supporters to determine gender bias, then if they follow the law, they must find supporters of Clinton.
There is no perfect employer. There are no perfect employees. When a jury decides to discriminate against a refusal or whistleblower, or sometimes slanders or harasses a case, it will find that the white hat is more than a white hat or black hat.
"Substantial incentives" - simplifying artistic terminology
from
What is the plaintiff's burden of proof in a discrimination case? Hear a] motivation is a key element of evidence, b] smoking is enough, you will be surprised. No one wants to see the gun being fired. They may not even see the gun. But they have the right to smell the smell of gunpowder on the manager's sleeve, even if he made a lot of evidence of absence.
In the Employment Law, the plaintiff's task is to prove that the "substantial incentives" of the employee's decision are illegal. This means there may be multiple reasons for concurrency. But the fuel additives placed in the manager's tank are illegal. The mixed fuel stops the engine from running.
Follow this formula [because this is the law]:
- The plaintiff belongs to a "protected category", such as a person over 40 years old, or a disabled person, or a minority.
- The plaintiff is qualified to do the job and is as proficient as the survivors.
- The plaintiff did a pretty good job, of course not perfect, but good enough;
- Have work to do;
- The plaintiff was fired.
- A person who is not in the same "protected category" takes over the job, replacing the plaintiff, or being a benefactor of some or all of the duties that she redistributes;
According to the labor law, if the plaintiff stopped in the evidence and the defendant had fallen asleep during the trial, the plaintiff won. But the defendant will not fall asleep. The defendant has proof of absence and hopes that you will hear their opinion. In other words, the defendant wants the plaintiff to assume the ultimate responsibility and prove that discrimination is the cause of termination.
So now the documents and witnesses marched in front of the jury to show that the plaintiff was a] a villain; b] incompetent ass; c] a good person with little or no motivation; or d] a good person who had to be fired. Remember that no staff is perfect. There will be documents and witnesses. It is also known that layoffs are an excellent way to hide illegal discrimination. We all know how older workers are disproportionately burdened with shrinking stories.
At this point, the burden of proof is transferred to the employee. It is like this: The reason given by the employer for my termination is not the real reason. Here is evidence that: a] the reason is how to distort and distort, and b] how others in my "protected category" do better than me, but still work there. According to the law, this is called excuse evidence. If successful, the burden will be transferred to the employer to reinvigorate the employee's "dirt." So it went back and forth until the jury was instructed to reach a verdict. Please note that in this shifting burden of proof, the plaintiff does not need to provide direct evidence of illegal motives. If the employee succeeds in angering the employer's reason for termination is not credible, then smoke is enough. Think of this excuse to prove: Yes, employers have other reasons, but these reasons are like fuel will not ignite. The catalyst is that the plaintiff is too old.
Evidence of discrimination: conclusion
from
Prejudice is unconscious and illegal. Give the moment of that idea. We are marking the employer's responsibility for the unconscious mental or emotional process. There is another idea for this secondary conclusion. We impose a burden of proof on our employees to show that this unconscious process prompts them to decide to terminate his or her work. However, if the jury understands that the burden of proof is not an absolute guarantee, then it can be done. The court must direct the jury to know that the jurors are indeed incomplete certainty. The jury was instructed to find only the most likely explanation for dismissal as an illegal prejudice. We know that real people in actual work are not bragging about prejudice. We will never hear this testimony in court. The best evidence that employees can provide is indirect evidence, and the burden of proof is simply to show that illegal prejudice is more likely to terminate [51% possible].
Orignal From: Proof of employment discrimination
No comments:
Post a Comment