In the case of petitioner ExtremeNet versus respondent Allen Lopez, this case occurred in the State of Georgia in which At Will Employment Law applies. Respondent is making a counter claim.
The respondent had worked for the petitioner for seven years in a middle-management position. The respondent found the position rewarding and was well paid. The petitioner struggled to manage the effects of an economic downward spiral; therefore, some employees were laid off and new personnel policies were implemented. The respondent became frustrated with the alleged unfair treatment of lower-level employees and created and published a critical website speaking against the management practices and the discrimination of a fictional company that had astonishing similarities to the petitioner. The website gained publicity from the media and high-tech websites. The petitioner held a meeting with the executives to decide whether the respondent should be fired and whether legal action need to be taken to have the respondent’s website removed for the internet. The petitioner and the respondent have agreed to have their case resolved in arbitration and will adhere to the ruling handed down. The State of Georgia is an at will employment state, which means the petitioner can fire the respondent for any reason, at any time, and without any notice, however, it is unlawful to fire the respondent due to a discrimination charge or retaliation (Parks, Chesin, & Walbert, 2013). …show more content…
The respondent cannot be legally fired for opposing or disliking the alleged unlawful employment practices. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: “This law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion national origin, or sex” (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d., para. 1). Private sector employees do not have First Amendment Right protection from retaliation nor does the freedom of speech apply (Workforce Fairness, 2011). The petitioner contends that the respondent’s website has created distress and concern to the company due to the traffic and publicity it received. The petitioner contends that the allegations that the respondent is alleging on discrimination does not hold any truth. The petitioner contends they use the competitive approach theory and their main goal is to “make a buck” and the respondent’s website is interfering with that goal (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2011). The petitioner is requesting that the arbitrator rule in their favor allowing the respondent to be fired and that his website be removed from the World Wide Web. The respondent contends that the petitioner discriminated against the gender and age during the layoffs and the new personnel policies treated lower-level employees unfairly. The respondent contends that he raised his concerns with his superiors, but no actions were taken to resolve the issues. The respondent contends that he acted out of a sense of justice; therefore, his creative work was protected by his First Amendment Right. The respondent contends that the petitioner should not be allowed to fire him for exercising his First Amendment Right. The respondent contends that his actions were that of altruism because he acted in the interest of himself and his co-workers (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2011). The respondent respectfully requests for an arbitrator ruling allowing him to keep the website, his current positon, and job. Based on the facts
The respondent had worked for the petitioner for seven years in a middle-management position. The respondent found the position rewarding and was well paid. The petitioner struggled to manage the effects of an economic downward spiral; therefore, some employees were laid off and new personnel policies were implemented. The respondent became frustrated with the alleged unfair treatment of lower-level employees and created and published a critical website speaking against the management practices and the discrimination of a fictional company that had astonishing similarities to the petitioner. The website gained publicity from the media and high-tech websites. The petitioner held a meeting with the executives to decide whether the respondent should be fired and whether legal action need to be taken to have the respondent’s website removed for the internet. The petitioner and the respondent have agreed to have their case resolved in arbitration and will adhere to the ruling handed down. The State of Georgia is an at will employment state, which means the petitioner can fire the respondent for any reason, at any time, and without any notice, however, it is unlawful to fire the respondent due to a discrimination charge or retaliation (Parks, Chesin, & Walbert, 2013). …show more content…
The respondent cannot be legally fired for opposing or disliking the alleged unlawful employment practices. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: “This law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion national origin, or sex” (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d., para. 1). Private sector employees do not have First Amendment Right protection from retaliation nor does the freedom of speech apply (Workforce Fairness, 2011). The petitioner contends that the respondent’s website has created distress and concern to the company due to the traffic and publicity it received. The petitioner contends that the allegations that the respondent is alleging on discrimination does not hold any truth. The petitioner contends they use the competitive approach theory and their main goal is to “make a buck” and the respondent’s website is interfering with that goal (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2011). The petitioner is requesting that the arbitrator rule in their favor allowing the respondent to be fired and that his website be removed from the World Wide Web. The respondent contends that the petitioner discriminated against the gender and age during the layoffs and the new personnel policies treated lower-level employees unfairly. The respondent contends that he raised his concerns with his superiors, but no actions were taken to resolve the issues. The respondent contends that he acted out of a sense of justice; therefore, his creative work was protected by his First Amendment Right. The respondent contends that the petitioner should not be allowed to fire him for exercising his First Amendment Right. The respondent contends that his actions were that of altruism because he acted in the interest of himself and his co-workers (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2011). The respondent respectfully requests for an arbitrator ruling allowing him to keep the website, his current positon, and job. Based on the facts