Where a plaintiff has brought suit claiming that he was fired for reporting to management that a coworker allegedly had been sexually harassing female employees, the defendant employer should be awarded summary judgment because its stated basis for terminating the plaintiff, that he violated the employer’s customer engagement policies, was not pretextual.
“[The plaintiff] brought the instant Complaint after he was fired from his job as a manager at Cumberland Farms. … In essence, [the plaintiff] claims he was fired for reporting a coworker to management based on complaints that the coworker was allegedly sexually harassing female employees. Cumberland Farms filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims, arguing that [the plaintiff]’s termination came only after he violated Cumberland Farms’ customer engagement policies. … Specifically, the alleged violation occurred during an incident where he engaged in a verbal confrontation with a customer, left his post at the store counter, and followed the customer towards his vehicle. …
“Both parties concede that [the plaintiff] exited the store and confronted [the customer] in the parking lot, despite asserting differing reasons for doing so. Cumberland Farms’ policy on Challenging Guests is clear and explicitly instructs employees to not ‘follow or escort a challenging guest [and] never jeopardize your safety, or the safety of others.’ … The policies do not require a physical altercation to take place, and the simple act of...
Commonwealth Games swimmers have clashed over a cheating allegation. False. The spat is fabricated and the quotes in the story are fake. AAP FactCheck - Clickbait Facebook pages are exploiting the...