Taking What They Giving Cause You're Working For A Living: Snarfsplainer

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Supporter
Greetings and salutations, loyal .... um... fan. It has been a while* since I have posted anything law-like. So, I thought I’d spend a few minutes today talking about the fun and games involved when you sue ... your employer. Wait, what? YOUR EMPLOYER IS THE SOURCE OF LIGHT AND JOY. DO NOT ANGER MOTHER. Ahem.

Sorry, where was I? So, let’s say you have a particularly bad case of the Mondays, and you were thinking, “Hey, you know what? To heck with da man. Ima bring this lawsuit!” We’ve all been there! Well, let’s talk about some of the common issues, known, unknown, and Rumsfeldian, that trap the unwary. Almost as if employers, who generally have money, have used that money to pay the people that write laws the make it harder for you to sue them.

*For definitions of "a while" that are longer than "one minute," and shorter than, "It's been a minute."

Disclaimer: I am giving a brief overview of a lot of different topics in the following posts. None of this constitutes any sort of legal advice. In addition, if you’ve read anything I’ve written before, you know that the law is complicated, we have all sorts of differences between jurisdictions, and that the exceptions have exceptions. Also? I will make broad generalizations solely for the purpose of bad jokes and so I can work in something about tacos, bards, or Nickelback. I am as serious as a dog star; do not rely on the following in any way, shape, or form.


1. I was injured at work, and ...

So sorry. But you’re out of luck! A long, long time ago, it was nearly impossible to sue anybody for anything. You’d have your all limbs severed because your employer was using a farm thresher to clean the floors, and some judge with a beard (judges were required to have beards back then) would say something like, “Because you knew that threshers existed at your workplace, you cannot sue your employer, and must, in fact, pay your employer to clean up that mess you made by bleeding all over the floor. Now, quit yer whining about your arms and legs and get out!”

Anyway, there was a revolution in American in the early part of the 20th Century as we adopted Worker’s Compensation laws! YAY MURIKUH! Now, if you are injured on the job, you should be covered. But wait ... didn't I say that employers have to get a little somethin' somethin'? That's right, the employer benefits as well- because the implementation of these laws means that you cannot sue your employer for accidents (negligence) that occur on the job. The usual way this tradeoff is considered beneficial for many people that suffer minor injures at work, or injuries that require some care for a period of time- after all, they don’t have to go to court! However, you might want to look at, say, the standard schedule of payment for a loss of a finger. That’s right- states have standard schedules to pay you for the loss of various body parts (and for what it’s worth, the thumb is worth the most, the pinkie the least... BECAUSE THE THUMB IS KING OF THE HAND AND ALL OTHER FINGERS MUST BOW BEFORE IT). In other words, the employer is protected from lawsuits. Weird how that works, isn’t it?


2. So I signed a bunch of stuff when I started ...

Don’t we all! But ... did you read any of it? I hope you did! Not that it matters- after all, if we want the job, we sign the papers, amirite? Increasingly, however, with all of that introductory paperwork is an Arbitration agreement. Over the past few decades, but arguably with a vengeance since 2011 (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion) the Supreme Court has been giving the extra juice to arbitration clauses. There is a long story behind this, which is fascinating! But the short story is this- employers can, when they hire you, have you sign an agreement before you start working. And that agreement means that you can’t go to court over any of the standard employment claims people have**- hostile work environment, discrimination, unpaid wages or overtime, and so on. It also means you can’t join with other employees who suffered in the same way (it most likely includes a waiver of class action). Blah blah blah, what does all of this mean?

So, let’s discuss the good things about arbitration- and there are good things! It is faster, less formal, cheaper, and more decisive than going to Court. You don’t have to worry about endless appeals. Things will get done, and get done reasonably quickly. Many arbitrators are quite excellent. But there has to be a downside, right? Why are employers so gosh-darn eager to go to arbitration?

Because it sucks for the employees, that’s why. Litigation is often about leverage. Employers tend to be in a better position, financially, than employees; this is why Plaintiff’s attorneys in this area work on contingency (or recover based on a statute that provides for their fees). In other words, the employee isn’t paying for their attorney. An arbitration agreement is a barrier to entry for the employee; many Plaintiff’s attorneys don’t want to bother because arbitration isn’t as lucrative or certain as court cases, and because they will lack leverage to settle the case. This isn’t always true- excellent cases with the potential of large recovery, or a well-heeled client who will pay will always attract counsel, but it's true in enough cases. And it is also true that in certain areas, repeat players (such as unions) will prefer arbitration agreements, as it gives them a quick and easy remedy. But for the most part, arbitration agreements tend to deter claims from even being filed, due to fewer attorneys willing to take them.

The next issue is, of course, leverage again. Arbitration with a class action waiver means that employees cannot aggregate their claims together, which makes a huge difference.

How did we agree to sue our employer? All at once!

And how did we sue our employer? One at a time.

Moreover, while arbitration is less costly for the employee, the streamlined and less formal nature make it much less costly for the employer, so there is very little pressure on the employer to settle just to avoid the cost of litigation. In addition, while the courts are open to the public and filings are public records ... arbitration isn’t. So for cases where an employee might be able to count on the employer’s shame mattering (not wanting these facts in the public record), guess what? Arbitration effectively can sweep a great deal of that under the rug. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, studies consistently show that arbitration generally provides for lower amounts that a jury verdict or a bench trial. Which is, again, to the benefit of the employer and means less leverage for settlement.

Now, I don’t want to paint this as “arbitration bad!” Arbitration provides an amazing, wonderful, cheap, and efficient alternative to court. I think arbitration can be great. But ... arbitration should be an alternative to court that the parties agreed to. Not a random piece of paper that a new employee signs, without really looking at it, along with 20 other forms on their first day of work.

Enough about that. So there was a very brief overview of two big issues- worker's compensation laws, and arbitration clauses. If people are interested, I will add a post next week discussing more specific work-related issues, given that we often have discussions on EnWorld about the TTRPG industry and the use of independent contractors.

**In 2021, a law was passed that amended the Federal Arbitration Act to preclude mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment and sexual assault claims.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm not a lawyer, but as an HR professional I come at this from the point of view of the employer who does not wish to be sued.

In other words, the employer is protected from lawsuits. Weird how that works, isn’t it?
I work in an office environment and deal with maybe half a dozen worker's compensation issues a year. And when I say issues, I mean really low key injuries like throwing a back out picking up boxes or tripping over some cables. I don't quite have the same cynical take as you in regards to protecting the company because worker's compensation also allows the employee to be covered even if the accident was their own fault.

While an employer is protected from many lawsuits, they may still be held liable if it was their negligence that led to the injury. If a supervisor is aware of an employee who is frequently observed to flout safety rules without corrective action and another worker is injured as a result, the injured worker may well have a good case the employer's negligence led to their injury. If I hire someone to take care of my fleet of vehicles and an employee is injured because their brakes don't work, I might be liabel if the person I hired was not at qualified for the position.
 

Obligatory YYMV based on State/Province, country, etc.. Many American States are very anti-worker which is rather surprising, given who actually built them. you may find that rather than litigation your best way forward is to contact your government employment standards office. In Ontario, Canada (that place of myth and legend), for example, ours is literally called the Employment Standards Branch. They can advise on routes of action and, sometimes, they're even good at it. In some cases they can pursue your employer for legal redress, under statute.

For example I was laid off by a previous employer who then proceeded to close and sell the office. They gave me roughly one week verbal notice and a written notice when I was literally on my way out the door. I was not paid my outstanding vacation pay (2 weeks). A few things about that.

1) If you are not going to be called back, when laid off, that amounts to what is called a "constructive dismissal." You were actually fired, but they didn't want to use that word for some reason (usually self-serving).

2) In Ontario at least, situation dependent, you should normally receive two weeks pay in lieu of notice. The notice must be in writing and dated for the date that you received it, not when it was written.

3) For organizations in Canada above a certain number of employees you can be owed Termination Pay which would amount to one week's pay per year of service (based on final year), or one week at minimum, assuming you are a permanent employee.

Now let's count how my employer went wrong.

a) With the building having been sold and all stock pulled back to head office, there was no question as to this being a constructive dismissal.

b) Their actions gave me effectively zero notice of ending my employment.

c) The company had more employees than that arbitrary number (I think the limit was 250 at the time), so they owned me termination pay. I had worked for them for seven years, though the CFO tried to gaslight me into believing that I had only been there for four(?!).*

Through the Employment Standards Branch, with the help of a real Pit Bull of a case worker, I ultimately received two weeks pay for ending my employment, two weeks pay in lieu of notice, two weeks vacation pay, and seven weeks termination pay. I don't know that I was due that first two weeks but I wasn't going to argue it and, quite frankly, I think my former employers were scared of my case worker.

*If you ever want to gas light an employee then I recommend not first using that employee, for maybe 5 years or so, as your business communications writer. The practice he gets will not serve you well.
 
Last edited:

You know, @Snarf Zagyg, I like your legal threads, but I keep waiting for you to touch on a topic that never seems to come: how (for all their faults) you need a lawyer when you're subject to a civil suit...if only because the other side is going to have one of their own (i.e. why you should never try to represent yourself if you're not a lawyer, regardless of the merits of the case).

(Of course, if you have posted such a thread and I've simply overlooked it, then I'll throw out a legal term of my own: mea culpa).
 

You know, @Snarf Zagyg, I like your legal threads, but I keep waiting for you to touch on a topic that never seems to come: how (for all their faults) you need a lawyer when you're subject to a civil suit...if only because the other side is going to have one of their own (i.e. why you should never try to represent yourself if you're not a lawyer, regardless of the merits of the case).

(Of course, if you have posted such a thread and I've simply overlooked it, then I'll throw out a legal term of my own: mea culpa).

Why you shouldn't represent yourself-


Some various types of free representation-

To answer your question in general-
You can always represent yourself in a civil lawsuit. Just ... don't. Obviously, as this is about the law, I can't give you a simple answer, and there are exceptions (I mention some in those articles, like small claims) but generally ... don't. Penny wise, pound foolish. Also, you don't have the right to a free attorney in a civil lawsuit.

Finally, while "you" (as in a natural person) can represent yourself, if a company (corporation, LLC, legal entity) is sued ... it cannot represent itself. Even if the legal entity is just a shell for you. It must be represented by counsel.

Hope this helps.
 

You know, @Snarf Zagyg, I like your legal threads, but I keep waiting for you to touch on a topic that never seems to come: how (for all their faults) you need a lawyer when you're subject to a civil suit...if only because the other side is going to have one of their own (i.e. why you should never try to represent yourself if you're not a lawyer, regardless of the merits of the case).
I used to handle immigration issues at work (H-1B visas), and part of my job was to act as a liason between our attorney and our employees. After a few years, I got to the point where I could answer almost any question an employee would ask me but even then I would always consult with our attorney before answer them. What I found is that our attorneys were not only experts at immigration law, but they kept up with what the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services was actually doing as far as how they were processing applications. No matter how much I learned about immigration law, how the USCIS works, and everything else surrounding the employment of foreign nationals, I was always going to be a layman. I understood more than enough that I needed my lawyer.
 

So, based on the lack of engagement*, I am going to retire this series for now (like the Streaming Service Power Rankings).

IOW, don't expect part 2 to drop any time soon ... I will probably post something specific to nuTSR when the briefs are written in that appeal.

*The only way I know people enjoy the posts are if people react to the OP with a reaction and/or they generate discussion.
 

To answer your question in general-
You can always represent yourself in a civil lawsuit. Just ... don't. Obviously, as this is about the law, I can't give you a simple answer, and there are exceptions (I mention some in those articles, like small claims) but generally ... don't. Penny wise, pound foolish. Also, you don't have the right to a free attorney in a civil lawsuit.

Finally, while "you" (as in a natural person) can represent yourself, if a company (corporation, LLC, legal entity) is sued ... it cannot represent itself. Even if the legal entity is just a shell for you. It must be represented by counsel.

Hope this helps.
Tangent: one of my earliest cases as a solo attorney was- I kid you not- a small claims case in the court of a Justice of the Peace. Under Texas law, a JP doesn’t even have to be a lawyer.

So when I stepped forward to announce I was representing my client, I got stared at quietly for a minute. I could almost hear the saloon doors flapping back & forth as the piano player stopped mid song, and a family of tumbleweeds ran for cover.

The other party didn’t even show.😂
 

Tangent: one of my earliest cases as a solo attorney was- I kid you not- a small claims case in the court of a Justice of the Peace. Under Texas law, a JP doesn’t even have to be a lawyer.

So when I stepped forward to announce I was representing my client, I got stared at quietly for a minute. I could almost hear the saloon doors flapping back & forth as the piano player stopped mid song, and a family of tumbleweeds ran for cover.

The other party didn’t even show.😂

So I had a similar experience a long time ago.

I was at a firm (think "We are the people that crush dreams") and we had a client with FU money. Well, all the clients at that firm had FU money, but you get the idea. Anyway, for reasons (ahem) he had a silly lawsuit filed against him in small claims court in Podunk, Nowhere. And because he was a client, I had to go to a small claims court and get the case dismissed.

Long story short- the people that brought the claim were locals, I was a fancy attorney, and even though I was 100% right, the judge was like ... Nope. Like the old salsa commercials (New Yooooork City?).

I had to appeal a small claims court decision, which I won, but still. The amount spent on all of that was easily 50 times the amount at issue. Heck, the amount spent to just write something (HA!) for small claims court and go there was easily more than the claim.

Life is weird sometimes.
 

So I had a similar experience a long time ago.

I was at a firm (think "We are the people that crush dreams") and we had a client with FU money. Well, all the clients at that firm had FU money, but you get the idea. Anyway, for reasons (ahem) he had a silly lawsuit filed against him in small claims court in Podunk, Nowhere. And because he was a client, I had to go to a small claims court and get the case dismissed.

Long story short- the people that brought the claim were locals, I was a fancy attorney, and even though I was 100% right, the judge was like ... Nope. Like the old salsa commercials (New Yooooork City?).

I had to appeal a small claims court decision, which I won, but still. The amount spent on all of that was easily 50 times the amount at issue. Heck, the amount spent to just write something (HA!) for small claims court and go there was easily more than the claim.

Life is weird sometimes.
Sometimes it's just ego.

But sometimes the fact of the verdict against you is going to cost more than the basic judgment.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top