Think getting fired is bad? It gets worse.

[Sub Atomic]

Think getting fired is bad? It gets worse
Del. employer sues ex-worker for lost profits, pay

The News Journal
05/05/2006

If you are reading this at the office, stop immediately and get back to work.

And don't make any personal phone calls. Or listen to music.

Instead, learn from the case of Drew Scopelliti, who earned $90,000 for eight months of work as sales director for U.S. Card Partner Services in Newark.

His former employer claims the 44-year-old, who now lives in Chicago, overstated his qualifications to get the job, and once hired, made too many personal phone calls and played with his iPod too much.

The company not only fired him in July, it is now demanding in a federal lawsuit that he pay back the $90,000 plus an additional $210,000 in profits that the company believes it lost because of his poor job performance.

.more.

on edit: http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060505/NEWS/605050358/1006

[lindisfarne]

1. This is ridiculous. Why didn't they fire him much sooner if his

performance was so horrific?

[BattyDem]

3. Exactly!

If he's that bad, you don't keep him on the staff for 8 months! :eyes:

[barb162]

10. I have seen this over and over again. Bosses don't like to admit

they screwed up and hired the wrong person, so they keep letting the person slide

[BattyDem]

15. I can understand that, but ...

the boss can't turn around and sue the guy because he was a bad employee. That's the whole point of being the boss - you get to fire bad employees. If the company lost money because the bad employee wasted time, it's the boss's fault for not firing him sooner. This whole thing is nuts! :crazy:

[LiberalFighter]

26. What was the boss doing before this to make sure employee was doing...

what he was suppose to be doing?

[Seabiscuit]

41. That's why the employee's lawyer will probably win on summary

judgment after including an affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages in the answer filed to the complaint of the employet.

[Bake]

65. Former employee wins on motion to dismiss

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6) in federal court, similar rules in every state I'm familiar with.

There is no cause of action for this. Not breach of contract, not a tort.

And businesses want everyone to think the only frivolous lawsuits are the ones filed against THEM! Bah!

Bake, Esq.

[BooScout]

42. Then the boss is at fault not the employee.

Most companies hire you on for a 3 month probationary period. If this guy sucked so bad they should have parted company much sooner. This lawsuit will go nowhere fast.

[allisonthegreat]

59. i guess it was all about the $$$

and not about the actual work or non-work he did..jmo

[Clovis Sangrail]

61. $120k/year

At that level of salary it's unlikely there was any boss looking over his shoulder to see if he was working or screwing off.
The only way they would know is listening to his subordinates (unlikely) or by lack of accomplishments (which might not be due for a year).

I've seen completely incompetant people hired into $100k+ jobs a number of times.
Unless they're showing up to work naked they usually last LONGER than 9 months before the higher ups figure out the person is worthless.

I don't think the company has any right to get compensated for making a stupid hirinig decision...
just pointing out that it doesn't seem at all odd that an incompetant employee at that level lasts that long.

[Scairp]

2. Geez

Whoever decided that this is a good idea clearly has rocks for brains. I doubt this suit will even see the inside of a courthouse. You cannot have at will employment and then allow the employer to sue to get back wages legally earned.

[lovuian]

4. I don't think this lawsuit is going to go very far...

The guy made them look like a fool!!
They deserve it!!!

[rodeodance]

5. hey, can we, the citizens apply this to our boss--the busco gang?

[Ian David]

34. Bush isn't our boss. He's our employee. n/t

[heliarc]

63. Hear Hear! (n/t)

[bluestateguy]

6. Another reason why I hope to avoid working in the private sector in my lif

nt

[FloridaPat]

7. I know someone who was so bad that he was the worst programmer

I ever had to work with. Plus he never shut up and had one-way conversations. He did all the talking. Took the company 4 years to get rid of him.

[barb162]

11. I believe it; I know someone who hired a BLIND programmer

and was afraid of letting him go.

[politicat]

43. Being blind does not preclude one from being a good programmer.

With access to the right technology (a reader and a touchable display) the blind are just as good at programming or anything else as the sighted.

When I finally go completely blind - within 15 years, if the technology doesn't improve significantly - there will be no reason for me to give up coding or writing or any of the things I do now. I will just have to use adaptive technology. And those who are blind from birth have an advantage - they don't have to relearn how to use a computer to take advantage of the new tech.

Take your prejudice and fold it up till it's all sharp corners.....

[Demobrat]

13. I worked with somebody once

who did NOTHING but play computer poker all day for 4-1/2 years. She finally got fired after the person who hired her, who was no way ever going to admit he screwed up, finally got fired.

[tenshi816]

32. I had a secretary

who refused to type or answer the phone. She said she was my "assistant" and as such shouldn't have to do such things.

According to HR, she had been at the firm for years before I started there and they "couldn't" fire her without paying her a lot of money to leave (this is in the UK), so instead they continually bounced her from department to department until she ended up with me in PR and marketing. My department head agreed she was an appallingly bad worker, but that she was kept on because she "had a nice smile".

Weird thing is, she's still working there, and I left in 1991. Ol' Shirley's a survivor, just like a cockroach, and about as useful as one.

[Renew Deal]

60. I don't know why it takes so long to get rid of people like this.

We had a guy who was not cooperative, studied for his nursing exam instead of working, was rude, didn't want to be there and was generally a drag. They kept him on almost 4 years. We knew he was trouble within 4 weeks. There was technical corporate bullshit holding him on.

[jerry611]

8. This lawsuit will never get off the ground

This thing will be thrown out pretty fast...

You can fire the employee for practically any reason, but the employee can not be liable for any loss of revenue do to job performance. If he were to steal money or be involved in theft, then they can sue...but a company cannot sue someone for lost imaginary revenue.

My advice to the company is to do better training and hiring if they want to prevent lost revenue.

[not_nameless]

12. send a message

"In theory, if it saw a jury, they might spend as much
[as they are seeking] in legal fees," he said.

"Are they trying to send a message to middle managers? To
put the fear of God into the rank and file?" he said.
Perhaps company officials expect to get the money back through
increased productivity of frightened employees, he added.

[serryjw]

9. You can say the same about most CEO's

Whom do the stockholders go sue? "We want your 'golden parachute' back??

[Union Thug]

14. Want to start a bloody class war/revolution? This is the recipe...

This is a meant to intimidate workers, clearly. And frankly, this kind of blatant, shameless bullying will not be received well, regardless of the guy's performance.

Keep pushing it, assholes.

Americans are complacent now, but too much more of this kind of crap will eventually break their backs... This is an amazingly stupid place to start pushing back on the worker, regardless of whether they deserved to be fired or not. Stupid.

[OhioNerd]

18. "This is a meant to intimidate workers..." ?

That's kind of a stretch.

[Union Thug]

20. Stretch? Perform or we'll sue you back into the world of

7-11 burritos. That's the message.

[OhioNerd]

38. You're letting your imagination run away with you. (n/t)

[nashville_brook]

22. what else could it be, really?

someone somewhere took internal relations into consideration when making this decision.

it would be intimidating to be one of his colleagues not getting call-backs.

[OhioNerd]

40. What else could it be?

What else could it be?

Are you serious? Look, it's not my intention to be snarky, but is that REALLY the only possibility that you can call to mind? Seriously, I'm actually asking.

[JVS]

45. That's not a stretch at all!

[OhioNerd]

48. Gee, such a compelling and incisive retort. I'm convinced!

:eyes:

[JVS]

50. You get what you give. You declared it a stretch, where's your evidence?

How is it a stretch o enlightened one?

[OhioNerd]

51. It doesn't work that way.

Doesn't work that way.

Those making the claim that it IS meant to be worker intimidation have the burden of proof.

[JVS]

52. It could just as well work the other way. You were asked what else it...

could be. What else is it?

Your comment offered no insight into why believing it to be intimidation is going to far.

[OhioNerd]

53. No, it only works one way.

No, it only works one way.

What we KNOW we have is a single, specific incident. A guy got hired, he got fired, he got sued.

If you want to make the claim that this is more than just an isolated incident, that it's part of a pattern and that this pattern is proof of a particular thesis, then the burden of proof is upon you.

In the interest of saving you some trouble, I'll jump ahead. That's a bar that is set higher than you can reach. That's not because I'm trying to be a dick, it's because you don't have access to the information that you need to make that case. THAT is essentially MY point.

Fr. William of Occam, paraphrased for a modern age: KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!

Two simple explanations for the lawsuit:

1. There is something that happened that is not yet public information.
   
2. The "Decider" at that company is an idiot.
   

But lets go ahead and turn it into some kind of class warfare conspiracy against the proletariat, because GOSH, wouldn't it be terrible if we forgot to play into the stereotype for once?

[JVS]

55. You accused someone of taking it too far, back up you claim

Just because an incident happened to one person, doesn't mean that it has no message for other people. Was Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat a single incident and therefore incapable of sending a message to others?

What was too far about the message that the other poster up there got from this lawsuit?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

62. You're mistaking not understanding with not giving a shit

Legal action requires careful deliberation, they know what other consequences it has.

No amount of bloviation concerning Occam's razor changes that.

[Bill McBlueState]

25. sure, I'm up for it

Decades of Republican attacks on workers give companies the audacity to do shit like this. Maybe it's time to put people first again, and not by just whining about it on an internet message board.

[OhioNerd]

16. So they're suing him for being a putz? (n/t)

[JusticeForAll]

17. Drew Scopelliti probably has a stronger case

than they have...

If I were him, I'd sue for defamation of character, stress, hardship, and what ever other claims my lawyer could think up. That nasty employer would pay for making my name publicized in a frivolous suit.

[teknomanzer]

19. As business people are always keen to say...

let the buyer beware. The only way this employer may have even the slightest hint of a case is if there is a contract with certain stipulations. Otherwise I believe they are screwed. They should pack it in, and move on.

[nashville_brook]

23. this actually smells like a small group of bitter buddies

the more i read it -- i can see it -- 6 guys -- 2 bankers, 2 lawyers, 2 salesmen. put them in a room with a few million in sales -- GO!

[nashville_brook]

21. omg -- i would LOVE to bragging rights to being that bad of an employee!

[0007]

24. I'm betting it will never see the inside of a court room.

[susanna]

27. And it is somehow his fault that they didn't actually...

...check his qualifications before they hired him? Wow. Now THAT is too much. Seriously.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

28. Does this mean we can sue to get Dumbyass and The Dick to pay back

their salaries?

[Occulus]

29. Fine. Here's What *I'm* going to claim.

If I get fired for anything I say here, on this board, from the "privacy" of my own "home" (apartment, but whatever), I'll sue my employer for back pay on a 24/7 schedule from the time I was initially hired.

After all, they expect me to follow their rules, even when I'm off the clock. Therefore, I'm their employee, 24/7, and I expect to be paid for always following their rules.

It makes more sense than what this guy's bosses are pulling.

[Robbie Michaels]

30. That's why I'm glad I'm in sales

As long as I put up the numbers, no one says a word. :-)

[ConcernedCanuk]

31. So - can I sue past girlfriends for "poor performance"

.
.
.

OR

"getting worse"

can they sue ME for "poor" performance????

yikes!!!

[oscar111]

33. sue for profits generated but never paid to the employee

why not?

[juajen]

66. Profit belongs to the company; I believe that employee was salaried.

What I actually think is that this was payback. Employer probably had a real personal problem with the employee, and the best way to pay him back was to skewer his reputation. Honestly, who will hire him now? He's becoming a famous bad employee, according to his employer, that is. Wow, talk about the opposite of a good reference!

[BiggJawn]

35. Membership in the Wobblies looks better and better....

Along with all the other bullshit they force on you when they fire you, like non-disclosure clauses, which mean you can't use knowledge you acquired in a job in your NEXT job, and no-compete clauses, which usually require you to move or commute 150 miles one-way, now this....

Oh, and encourage RIF rumours on the shop floor, gets those slackers to keep their heads down and work harder...

[lonestarnot]

36. now there's a repuke twist.

[NewJeffCT]

37. did it take them 8 months to do a background check?

You'd think if the company hired somebody that made $90,000 for 8 months, which translates into $135,000 for a year, they would have run a pre-hiring background check on the guy? It's their own damn fault for not doing that sooner. I hope the judge laughs them out of court.

[Coventina]

39. Uh, whatever happened to "buyer beware"?

The frickin' company should "sue" their HR person who hired the guy, if it's that big a deal.

:shrug:

[Blue_Tires]

44. wow....90 grand for 8 mos of doing nothing

and i've been out of work over a year!

[Deja Q]

46. For a manager, the guy seemed underpaid...

:D

[napi21]

47. I think there's something else behind this suit.

Remember O'Reily threatening to sue his producer after she accused him of harrassment? That's what this sounds like to me. There was some kind of bad blood between that boss and employee. It could be anything' personality conflict, did something to make the boss look bad, maybe even a woman...who knows. But it sounds like a "I'm gonna get ya" retaliation to me.

[Jazz2006]

49. Yes, it struck me that there is something more going on, too.

On the surface, it just doesn't pass the smell test.

And from a legal standpoint, forget about it. The company is not going to get damages for alleged lost profits due to alleged poor performance by the employee.

My initial reaction upon reading the story is that the company is taking this ridiculous stance in order to intimidate the guy, perhaps in order to stave off a wrongful dismissal suit that he may have been intending.

[depakid]

54. The financial "services" industry

never fails to surprise me....

[Rex]

56. Welcome to Bush's America.

So Bush gets a FREE PASS at failure all his life...but us peons are expected to pay a company money on the risk they took in hiring 'we the little people'. The company must be run by morans if they can't hire confident people.

[hollowdweller]

57. Frivolous Lawsuit!

[NashVegas]

64. What a Wonderful World This Would Be

If the "indians" in a company could sue the "chiefs" for miserable performance.

I just don't see this happening.

[MadMaddie]

67. Doesn't this sum up what is wrong with the American Workplace..

including the US government...

I have noticed like many of you that the quality of personel that get hired into companies has declined dramatically....I think it started in the Reagan era when it became about me, me, me...no loyalty to companies and companies began to have no loyalty to their employees...NAFTA didn't help either...cheap labor etc.

What I have seen...
No respect for others
Companies firing experienced middle management and replacing them with twenty somethings....no experience..
No respect for dress codes...(here in the Seattle, WA area I am tired of looking at butt cracks, bellies, clothing that doesn't fit....
No disciplinary action towards those that break the rules...

There are more items but I will let you add them...

He should have been fired earlier...

[geniph]

68. Eight months?

What kind of incompetent idiot is his supervisor, if he let someone who was costing the company thousands of dollars in profits stay employed for 8 months? Why didn't they fire him in the first six weeks?