Stupid - Chicago Car Salesman Fired for wearing Packers Tie

**ElFuriosoGato** · 01-25-11, 10:10 PM

He was not fired for wearing the tie, he was fired for insubordination, there is a difference; and by the sounds of the employer did everything legally required to fire him.

http://www.aele.org/law/2009all12/2009-12MLJ201.pdf

I believe much of the coverage of this story has been sensationalized by the media where it is the little guy getting picked on by the evil corporation. I doubt the boss would so eagerly fire one of the "top" salesmen so easily, there were possibly additional reasons for the termination. The entire situation as it actually occurred has obviously not been made clear. It is easy to get a knee-jerk reaction out of most of the populace when you really only hear one side of the story.

And as for the case Cojiro suggested. The two situations are obviously different. You couldn't build a bigger straw man if you were the densest of the three little pigs.

**rock_lobster** · 01-26-11, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by ElFuriosoGato

He was not fired for wearing the tie, he was fired for insubordination, there is a difference; and by the sounds of the employer did everything legally required to fire him.

http://www.aele.org/law/2009all12/2009-12MLJ201.pdf

I believe much of the coverage of this story has been sensationalized by the media where it is the little guy getting picked on by the evil corporation. I doubt the boss would so eagerly fire one of the "top" salesmen so easily, there were possibly additional reasons for the termination. The entire situation as it actually occurred has obviously not been made clear. It is easy to get a knee-jerk reaction out of most of the populace when you really only hear one side of the story.

And as for the case Cojiro suggested. The two situations are obviously different. You couldn't build a bigger straw man if you were the densest of the three little pigs.

Well like cojiro said, insubordination can mean anything. If my boss tells me to do something unethical, and I get fired b/c I refuse, I guess I'm being "insubordinate", but it's justified.

My whole issue is that it was unreasonable to make the request that the boss made. And further more, if it can be proven that other elaborate ties have been worn to work with no issues, then the employer definitely has an issue for being discriminatory.....Believe me, I'm not "That guy", but I don't like idiots who do stupid things in the workplace, especially if it means someone is getting fired because of ignorance.

In other news, another local dealership in the area hired the guy on because he has such a good sales record

**ElFuriosoGato** · 01-26-11, 10:51 PM

No they most likely hired him because the myopic public will see him as an aggrieved party and will rush to support him and whatever dealership he now works at.

Handling insubordination a legal minefield for managers

Again, this has nothing to do with the tie, and everything to do with insubordination. You are trying to brush the word off as meaningless, but in the world of law (where the courts operate), it is nearly a textbook case.

Your boss cannot require you to do something that they know is unsafe or illegal. Being fired for refusing to perform an illegal act would be grounds for wrongful termination. Removing the tie was a reasonable expectation from the employee.

**Kraker Jak** · 01-27-11, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I smell a lawsuit, and an idiot.

Well, I dont know Illinoise laws, but sadly, In Indiana, we are an "At will" state, which means you can be fired for anything, anytime... (with exception to race, creed, color, religion, nationality, sexuality, etc)

**rock_lobster** · 01-27-11, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by ElFuriosoGato

No they most likely hired him because the myopic public will see him as an aggrieved party and will rush to support him and whatever dealership he now works at.

Handling insubordination a legal minefield for managers

Again, this has nothing to do with the tie, and everything to do with insubordination. You are trying to brush the word off as meaningless, but in the world of law (where the courts operate), it is nearly a textbook case.

Your boss cannot require you to do something that they know is unsafe or illegal. Being fired for refusing to perform an illegal act would be grounds for wrongful termination. Removing the tie was a reasonable expectation from the employee.

So everyone else wore ties to work with no issue. But when this guy where's a certain tie that is not obscene nor offensive, he get's asked to take it off because the owner is a huge bears fan....that's discriminatory, and grounds for a lawsuit. You can't have a dresscode unique to each guy there. Either you can wear ties, or not.

If the guy wear's a Bear's tie, there is no issue.....thus he is being an idiot and has no legal reason to fire the guy.

Insubordination is not strictly "If you don't do what I say, I can fire you". Don't care how much you think it is.

**Too Much Damage** · 02-02-11, 02:54 PM

Some people are just way to serious about sports. The article made me chuckle a bit and yes, if there was nothing else leading up to the firing, it was unjust to terminate his employment.

**BIGAG** · 02-05-11, 09:35 PM

Looks like John C Stone will be the next lucky owner of a car dealership. This has lawsuit written all over it. I bet the GM won't be working there after this gets big!