Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Young Gentleman, Mar 6, 2012.
I thought for sure this was about dressing better than Bruce Springsteen. He is the only capital B.
I found myself in a somewhat analogous situation when I traveled to Hong Kong with my boss. He asked me to help him find a tailor, and I offered up WW Chan. He was amazed and outraged by the prices I quoted, and we wound up with one of the saliva spraying shysters instead. He was thrilled with his "Two Suits, 6 Shirts, $600 US" deal, even though the workmanship and materials looked shoddy. As a certified I-Gent, I removed my monocle and shared my opinion of his clothing with him, resulting in my ejection with prejudice from the train to Guangzhou. Not really, but I was careful to tone down my style around him after that.
Ironically, the same guy thought nothing of dropping $5-10K in Macao and maintained a brokerage account with unlimited ATM withdrawals that he kept secret from his wife to feed his blackjack habit.
I'm busy with Swedish law, else I'd delve deeper, but read up on what's considered a wrongful termination in California.
Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
In California, an employment contract of indefinite duration is generally deemed to be at the will of either party (Cal. Lab. Code § 2922). However, the "at will" relationship can be expressly or impliedly modified by the employer. For example, if the employer issues handbooks or other publications to employees which suggest that employees will not terminated or disciplined in accordance with certain procedures, the employee may argue that the employee was wrongfully demoted or terminated if the company fails to follow its own procedures in demoting firing the employee. Similarly, if the employer provides oral assurances of continued employment, the "at will" relationship may found to have been modified, which may require the employer to establish "good cause" prior to terminating the employee. In the legal sense of the phrase as used under California state law, "good cause" means "fair and honest reasons, regulated by good faith on the part of the employer, that are not trivial, arbitrary, or capricious, unrelated to business needs or goals, or pretextual. A reasoned conclusion, in short, supported by substantial evidence gathered through an adequate investigation that includes notice of the claimed misconduct and a chance for the employee to respond." (Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Int'l, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 93, 108).
Which he had.
No. The quoted section deals with a handbook modifying the at will relationship and creating certain contractual rights (e.g. termination only with cause). There's nothing here mentioning a handbook or anything else that transformed OP's friend's employment from at-will to anything else.
This. You're all getting trolled
I'm not a lawyer, but if a company can't fire you for wearing clothes it considers ridiculous, that seems quite unfair. On the other end, what if dude was dressed shabbily? Company can't fire him for that either, if it's paying enough where it could reasonably expect the employee to afford something decent?
It is rare for a company's handbook to create contractual rights that would limit its ability to terminate employees at will. Most handbooks have a disclaimer expressly disavowing the creation of any contractual rights.
The OP's friend is going to be pissed when he gets the bill from this thread. Pretty sure we have accumulated a full day's worth of billing with these discussions.
And this makes my above statement all the funnier.
I am amazed that so many people have taken this outlandish story seriously.
Doesn't have to be a great lawsuit. It merely needs to be filed, and there are no shortage of alleged lawyers who would do that. An appearance on Good Morning America et al seals the deal, drawing publicity and a job offer from a firm where taste in dress is appreciated (such places do still exist).
The lawsuit might be weak (unless a public institution is involved, in which case you'd have a slam-dunk First Amendment issue--yes, the courts have interpreted dress as a manner of expression and therefore protected, particularly in a government setting), but I don't think it would cross the line into frivolous, and winnability is beside the point.
Even if we're being trolled, it is an interesting question. If he dressed like a slob or smelled or didn't wear any clothes at all, that would be one thing. But, end of the day, anyone who would fire a top performer because he dressed well is an ass, not an asset.
"within the rules of the company dress code"
There is a dress code for the workplace though, and he was given a oral warning that he was in breech of it. True, there is no mention of any publication that would change his at-will employment, but we do not really know at this point if there are any handbooks/publications (I can't find where the OP expressively denies any existance of such a publication), espescially since we aren't in direct contact with the OP's friend.
Wouldn't it also be hearsay if there hadn't been any formal notice from the boss? Word would go against word if it got to trial, boss could perjure if he is of such character.
In the words of Doc Holiday (if memory serves): "One can only appreciate Allen Edmonds for so long."
Separate names with a comma.