Thread regarding FTD layoffs

Can the Illinois Department of Human Rights help corroborate?

Inportant injunction

Cooper v Salazar

It means credibility can no longer be determined without affording plaintiff the right to confront and cross examine.

In other words, liars will be forced to sit there and squirm as they have to tell the truth finally


| 920 views | | 5 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+155DlXRB

5 replies (most recent on top)

You're welcome el pollo

FYI if anyone else is interested, here's a good link...

This is general info, not saying the particulars in this case from this link have any relevance to FTD, just that I do not know everyone's unique issues at this or any other company and am therefore just adding it to be informative (also because I've read other discussions at other companies and people may be perusing this forum, as well).

In corporate America, there's a whole lotta lying going on.

Which is why only dolts retain managers who provide plaintiffs with months of documented comments, stated in front of witnesses, who could be compelled to "face the music" and stop lying already.

The best witnesses are those who got let go and no longer work for an employer. They can be compelled to talk by the appropriate investigator.

This knowledge is why some of us, who have several years combined recent and past leadership experience NEVER got our companies into hot water.

If you report to someone behaving inappropriately....document

If you lead subordinates....shut your big incriminating mouth in offices with open floor layouts

Just some general advice

Not to be construed as directly related to FTD

Post ID: @3ahy+155DlXRB

To answer the "what?"

For those who are not aware, let's say people are laid off for a stated reason, but there is really a pretext that is unlawful (age or race or disability/perceived disability discrimination). Many culprits think they will be able to lie and deny and if anyone disputes, they can just swat the issue away somehow (presenting no doubt trumped up paperwork to present).

Because of this injunction, the IDHR cannot make a credibility determination in some of these cases without allowing the complaining party to confront and cross examine.

Essentially, if someone lied, because they were not under an oath, and they believed they would never ever have to face the music, they were incorrect. They could be forced to tell the truth before a trier of fact.

Can you just picture a liar having to tell the truth and squirm squirm squirm?

It's like karma. It comes back to bite them.

So watch you lie about.

Keep this is mind in the post COVID-19 climate if someone thinks they can bully, harass or discriminate and then not have to face the music by answering for it.

Post ID: @3pns+155DlXRB

Post ID: @2mct+155DlXRB

Post a reply