Brent, your question about the “march the employee out the door” termination raises a couple of interesting points, and follows on from a thought-provoking discussion I had with a colleague who works in the large corporate setting.
When you do fire someone, how do you deal with the trauma of sudden termination? I want to speak as a caregiver about something I have observed. Sometimes, we have to fire staff without warning. In the typical scenario...
Our question today is, how do you avoid a retaliation lawsuit? The original complaint doesn’t have to have merit. It could be wrong or ill-conceived. It is still going to be difficult to get a claim of retaliation dismissed. You are going to have to show a non-retaliatory business reason for the termination...
Moving an investigation along in a timely way and addressing concerns are important. And the investigation should not begin with assumptions of anyone’s innocence or guilt. It should be possible to show reasonably how the results were reached. If accusations are fabricated...
Two recent decisions on invocational prayer before local government Board meetings, filed in March of 2013, came out in opposite directions, but give some insight into the legal principles involved in determining whether Boards can properly sponsor a formal prayer before meetings. In Hudson v. Pittsylvania County, the federal district court for the Western District of Virginia issued an injunction against the prayers being offered. In Atheists of Florida v. City of Lakeland, the Eleventh Circuit found no constitutional violation. Different courts on different days, or consistent underlying principles?
This is quite helpful Theresa. I think the biggest issue here, is, wait for it, …communication! Part of me still struggles with wondering if it is possible to investigate a complaint by a party, gather information through an investigation through all parties, and end up by determining that the complaining party is more the problem than anyone else.
In our hypothetical, Tom and Sally reached out and made allegations to the mission leader. It seems fairly obvious this should have triggered an investigation. But we probably want to spend more time thinking about how investigations get started. When should you investigate? A number of situations may call for an investigation.
In your hypothetical, there is already a lack of mutual trust. Tom and Sally are seen as being perpetual complainers. And your mission leader isn’t consistent. He “usually” investigates and doesn’t have a methodical approach. So what do complainants have the right to know about the progress of an investigation and what is the effect of trust issues with leadership?
You hate to see a case with a caption like God’s Hope Builders, Inc. v. Mount Zion Baptist Church, since it seems unlikely the lawsuit is what God would have hoped for. The Georgia Court of Appeals, on March 28, 2013, remanded this case with orders to the trial court to figure out, if it legitimately could, who the church members actually were.
© Telios Law