Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Texas Aggie
As an attorney, I can tell you you are wrong about just about all of this.
|
I wasn't posting specifically about this case. I'm not a lawyer and I wouldn't have a clue about how the specifics of this case will be handled by a judge and jury.
My point was employers are not free to set any arbitrary standard they wish. Am I wrong about that? I can think of a whole lot of arbitrary standards from the old days that aren't around anymore (hopefully, in most places, but I'm sure they exist in others).
I was commenting specifically on that point, in response to someone else.
As far as the contractor status goes, I'm sure that does change things. Not being an official, I wasn't aware of that important point. It will probably entirely boil down to the language in the contract won't it?
I was aware in a lawsuit you are going to be dealing specifically with the individual(s) who brought suit. Forgive me, poor choice of words on that on.
Go reread my post looking at my comments more generally, rather than the specifics here. Am I still wrong? Other than the last part. Granted I probably should have left out the part about "disability being on the list", because it does make it seem like I'm saying this qualifies. But I wasn't trying to say that. With that comment I was only saying that this type situation could possibly be one that might get looked at, since employment rights for the disabled are protected to some degree. You seem to think his disabilty isn't severe enough to qualify. Point taken, I don't know.
I was only trying to say that generally employers cannot arbitrarilly fire (or not hire) people for reasons such as race, gender, age, religion, disability, etc...
As far as his specific case is concerned, I don't doubt you are correct. You don't even have an employer-employee relationship here.