A friend of mine worked for a social services agency where his boss hated him, for somewhat similar reasons to what Eeka described. She had him work overtime until a critical inspection and audit was past, then fired him for various vague reasons.

He collected unemployment and they challenged it. Trouble is, the company has to prove at the hearing that they not only followed legal procedures, but that they followed internal procedures. Since the boss did not give him the required warnings, or note anything amiss in his salary reviews, or issue a correction memo, or put his termination reasons in writing, or do anything else required by their own handbook, my friend won his claim at his hearing.

That meant that the agency had to pay higher unemployment premiums as a result - partly because they terminated him, partly because they didn't follow their own procedures and lost their challenge to his claim.

This was in MA, but my brother's roomate in OR used to tell all sorts of stories when he presided over hearings for unemployment and worker's comp claims. He ruled for the worker a good deal of the time simply because companies didn't do what either the law required or what their own internal policies demanded, bosses didn't complete paperwork or keep records, etc.

So sure, you can fire anybody for any reason at any time - that doesn't mean it isn't going to cost you big money if you do and you haven't followed your own procedures or kept a paper trail.

In BOLD, from my original comment:

That means you can be fired for no reason at all. It does not mean you can be fired for *any* reason.

It's obvious to the most casual observer that workplace discrimination is just one of several situations not covered by at-will employment. Stop assuming everyone around you are idiots because they don't state the obvious.

There still have to be policies saying that people will be fired for XY and Z, are entitled to N warnings, etc. So no, you can't just fire someone for no reason. There still have to be policies saying that people will be fired for XY and Z, are entitled to N warnings, etc., and it has to be applied consistently.

Bzzzt, thank you for playing. The policies do not have to exist; only if they exist (and they are not followed) can you then challenge the termination. See under "statutory exceptions":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

I think he was refering to the vinger concoction more so then the water balloons.

I think you do oftentimes resort to "blog mob violence" when you feel strongly about something. Wheter it be talking about shivving gang members in downtown Boston, going after cars with a chain on the street if they cut your bike off or launcing a water balloon attack on someones house (I still dont get the vinegar portion of it.) Im sure you wouldnt do any of those things, but they do make you , sometimes, seem like an irrational chain wielding , water balloon throwing, wild frontiers woman with no regard to the laws and customs of Boston regarding physical attacks.

She could probably have a pretty easy case that she was mistreated in several ways in the few days leading up to her termination, which would then make it retaliatory.

From the Herald story, it sounds like the boss was asking/expecting the employee to do something that goes against workplace safety guidelines (trying to defend oneself against an intruder). IANAL, but I have spent years as an administrator, and I know it's retaliation to fire someone because they've stood up for their right to a safe/legal work environment. I think OSHA probably has guidelines about dealing with intruders.

Also, David, I don't think she'd even have to go so far as claiming a disability (plus, it's gonna be a long shot; the ADA doesn't consider normal/healthy response to trauma to be a disability, since it's not, so she would have to develop full-blown PTSD, which can't be diagnosed until at least 6 months post incident, and the ADA also only covers long-term disabilities, not injuries and whatnot).

The case she does have is being denied reasonable use of sick days. Unless there's a written policy about how many sick days someone can use and she's exceeded it, then her employer is discriminating by not letting her have sick days when other people are presumably allowed to take them. THIS is where psych disability laws come into play; it's not ADA here, but rather state statutes. If sick days are allowed for broken legs, they need to also be allowed for panic attacks resulting from being robbed. Both are short-term injuries, not disabilities according to the ADA, but need to be accommodated equally.

Companies have lost in court for having policies saying that "mental health days are not allowed." The company can of course disallow employees from taking a sick day "for personal reasons," but it's discrimination if it's OK to take a day off "because I have a sore throat and fever" but not OK to take a day off "because I'm panicking and having all kinds of racing thoughts." The person doesn't need to have a mental health issue of the magnitude that would warrant protection under the ADA in order to prevail in a case like this. They just need to have emotional symptoms that warrant staying home to the same extent as physical symptoms that the employer deems acceptable sick-day excuses. The employer can require a note from a credentialed provider saying the person should stay out for X days, but can't require that the note go into the person's medical details.

My advice to someone who's had a traumatizing experience and needs a few days off would be to see an urgent care doc and see if it would be appropriate to take some PRN meds for a couple days to help you calm down. Then you have in writing a completely legitimate excuse for staying out of work -- it's absolutely appropriate to stay at home for a few days if you're taking a new medication and aren't sure how it affects you. Says so on the pharmacy insert. The prescriber can write you a completely benign note saying you've been prescribed new meds that might cause sedation or confusion at first, and you shouldn't work/make major decisions/operate heavy machinery for a few days.