most lawyers never made a free throw

That law firm is going to get sued bigtime. Count on it.

Or, at the very least an out of court settlement.

Hmmm fired on Friday, March 16th? Were those honchos all Green Irish? Another Irish battle of orange against green getting ready for the St. Patrick's Day celebrations?

As an at-will employee, you don't have much recourse. The boss can fire you just because he wants too.

BTW, happy end of St. Patrick's Day to all of you Irish and Irish lovers (or at least for those of you in the AST and EDT time zones.)

Come on all you union bashers...lemme hear you sound off on how this is right and just...right to work my a**, more like right to fire...that is exactly what it boils down to. This kind of crap is what happens when you don't have union protection. Take it from someone who's been there - contact your state NLRB and sit back and count the money, as of right now you are on a paid vacation. I live in one of those so called 'right to work' states and had someone pull a stunt like this on me, for different reasons. The end result was the same...a very nice 5 figure settlement, and they had to offer me my job back at the end of the day! I didn't take it, as I had found a new job...the two who did were laid off after 1 week :p.

Sometimes when an at will employee gets fired they don't have any recourse, but not always.An employer can't fire even an at will employee for an illegal reason such as discrimination against some one in a protected class,or in retaliation for things like being a whistle-blower or for having filed certain types of grievances either within the company or to an agency that investigates violations of labor laws, while they were still employed.(For example if you filed a complaint with the Wage and Hour Office, and your boss abruptly fired you the day s/he found out about the charges you made, you might have some recourse.)

Additionally some courts have treated employee handbooks as a formal, binding agreement made by the employer to the employee.So if the people who were fired for wearing orange shirts had an employee handbook that stated the violations of company policy that would result in disciplinary action, and wearing an orange shirt wasn't named in the employee handbook as grounds for disciplinary action AND if the handbook stated that for minor offenses disciplinary action would be progressive and the first step would be a verbal warning, but instead the company skipped all the steps in the disciplinary action process that were supposed to happen before a person was terminated, the discharged employee MIGHT have some legal remedies available to them,but they should talk to an attorney who specializes in employment law to know for sure.

Paid salvery in America you must always obey the master because in the modern version of slavery instead of selling you they fire you. So you must go out and find your next master or ?

I worked for a sofware company, the pay was decent when I was first hired As the economy got worse the company went to making us all salaried employees. We thought that was a great idea at first, then we all got phones that had to be answered day or night. They company has refused to pay over-time ( we are salaried now) The company has refused to hire new employees.....we figured that with all the time and energy including lack of sleep from answering the phone we are now working for barely minimum wage. There is no recourse.

"At-will" is not quite as simple as some of the posters here think it is. If the news story is accurate, the law firm doesn't have a leg to stand on. According to the article the executive who did the firing allegedly ".....told them that he understood there was a protest involving orange, and because they were all wearing the color, they were fired, the Sun Sentinel reported."

If there was no dress code, if this had become something of a regular occurrence as the article said it had then the executive has isolated a reason for the firing. You must not give a reason when you terminate someone in an at-will venue. You just tell them to leave, otherwise they have opened the door to a discrimination charge.

Worse, the executive allegedly said he understood this was some sort of protest. Wow! At-will or not, a citizen's right to protest may not be abridged without an explicit agreement wherein the employee gives up that right as a condition of employment.

Based on the limited information available, it would seem the ex-employees will probably win this in court.

@David Walker:

I'm not sure what world you live in, but "at will" is exactly as the other posters have suggested. An employer can fire you for any reason, at any time, without recourse. Some reasons are protected, but most are not.

And good luck trying to prove that discrimination case. From personal experience, the employers can say anything they want, and get away with it. Even when you have contrary documentation. In an "at-will" state, it more often than not really means "no employee rights". Open your eyes and think for yourself.

hmm...orange shirts? who the heck wears those unless you're a TN Vols fan. i wonder why they were really wearing orange.

Oh well, now they get to collect unemployment benefits and wear as much orange as they'd like!

The Evil Tessmacher:

You are absolutely dead wrong. You wrote:

"An employer can fire you for any reason, at any time, without recourse."

On that point, and that point alone, you are correct. However, when an employer divulges a reason, any reason, for firing an employee in an at-will state he opens the door to a challenge. If, as this story suggests, the reason for the firing was a suspicion that employees were pressing some sort of common cause and that their solidarity was manifested in orange T-shirts, the employer is in deep doo-doo.

Further, at least four employees are saying that is indeed the case. This is not an instance of a he-said/she said. This is AT LEAST four employees saying that is the fact. The executive, as a representative of the company AND with the power to hire and fire, has made what is quite possibly a fatal error. He told the truth.

There is little question that "at-will" is in all too many cases the equivalent of "no employee rights". Good grief, do you even read your own posts? As you said yourself:

"Some reasons are protected, but most are not."

So if anyone needs to open their eyes, it is you. Read what you write. SOME reasons are not protected. As I wrote, absent an explicit company policy, the freedom the peaceably assemble is still a protected right.

Yes, the going is tough, but for those who have opened their eyes, at least they're no longer traveling blind.

lynsypug- you can't collect unemployment if you get fired...

Bet these people wish they were in a union job...

UNION AND PROUD!

Yes, the going is tough, but for those who have opened their eyes, at least they're no longer traveling blind.

Got only one thing to say Mr. Walker...Baaaam!

This kind of crap is exactly why this country needs to change the employment laws. These people were fired from their jobs because their bosses didn't like the shirts that they were wearing. It wasn't as if the shirts were revealing, or contained an obscenity, but for the color. This is absurd! At-will employment laws are total BS. They exist so that an employer can fire one "for any reason, or for no reason." It's high time that the laws were rewritten, so that employers have to have a *legitimate, verifiable reason* to terminate an employee. Not simply because they don't like your shirts, or the way you said "Good Morning," on your way into the office, or inventing a reason if they happen to not like the employee personally. Employers think they can push people around, because now the economy is so bad, it's nearly impossible to get another job if you lose the one you have, and they have a million other applicants who will likely take your old job, and take less money to do it. It's time employees start pushing back. Oh, and to "doyourhomework,America," Yes, you CAN get unemployment if you are fired, as long as the employer can't show evidence of misconduct. I've done it myself several times. I've had employers outright lie to the labor department about me, and I PROVED THEM WRONG!

Maybe there's a different take on this story. Google the Wellborn Law Firm, and it appears to be a relatively small business. Several employees, perhaps a majority of them, wear orange shirts (some even orange lipstick) and go out for happy hour on pay day. With a pocket, or purse, full of cash after cashing the pay check, they assemble at the local watering hole, have a few (or maybe several), get loud and obnoxious and stand out like a sore orange thumb. Others at the bar start to wonder whether you would want to hire this law firm, because of this behavior. This happens every pay day apparently. A good reputation goes down the tubes.

I don't understand the "protest" explanation, but as this is a rather short article, I have to believe there is more to it than what we have read.

I wonder what the rest of the story is, because I would be willing to bet that there is more to it than has been told.

Beginning in the 1980s, employment at will came under challenge in the United States. Employees had grown increasingly dissatisfied with the rule for a variety of reasons. For one thing, a decline in the number of self-employed individuals—due, in part, to a continuing decline in the number of farmers—meant that most U.S. citizens worked for someone else. For another, a typical worker who was discharged currently lost more than in the past in terms of Pension, insurance, and other benefits.

As a result, a greater number of discharged workers brought suits alleging Wrongful Discharge from employment. By the 1980s, as concepts of job security expanded, employees became increasingly successful in such suits. In 1987, California juries ruled in favor of the employees in over two-thirds of such cases and granted an average award of $1.5 million. In some successful cases, the courts have created exceptions to the employment-at-will practice. Thus far, these exceptions have fallen into three broad categories: (1) breach of contract by the employer, (2) breach of an implied Covenant of Good Faith and fair dealing, and (3) violation of public policy by the employer. Employers and legislatures have responded in a variety of ways.

There are 3 limited exceptions in Florida statutes but they do not seem to apply here:

448.102 Prohibitions.—An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has:

(1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. However, this subsection does not apply unless the employee has, in writing, brought the activity, policy, or practice to the attention of a supervisor or the employer and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy, or practice.
(2) Provided information to, or testified before, any appropriate governmental agency, person, or entity conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by
the employer.
(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.

On the other hand as free agents now, they can make damned sure no one else wants to take a job with this employer by making what happened to them known far and wide.

Even firms that hire "at-will" employees can't break Federal Labor laws.

This is why labor unions were created in the first place. Employers want workers for the least amount of money and the longest possible work day. They want to control as much as possible and I can understand this, however, their agenda is diametrically opposed to the needs of the employee. There need to be rules that everyone has to obey. Everything has to be detailed and doccumented. Employees need protections as do employers so that nobody can abuse the other. Given the inherently selfish nature of humans, there always need to be intervening parties to abate such abuses. Why a law firm would fire a whole group of their employees for wearing orange shirts on a day off, is beyond my comprehension. I hope there is more to this story...Otherwise, this firm and its partners have lost their minds...

If you read the comments under the original article in the Orlando Sentinel, several other employees at the firm wrote that the orange shirts were worn to make fun of their new manager who apparently had a really bad fake tan. They didn't respect the new manager, hence the "protest". They also say that this group was made up of bullies. I don't know how true any of this is, but it makes more sense than getting fired for wearing orange. If it is true, then the law firm is doing them a favor by letting them seem like the victims.

While I agree that right-to-work states drive down salaries and are horrible for most workers, there was definitely more to this story than what was written.

@Kallie, you do have recourse. A company cannot just arbitrarily make hourly employees salaried unless your job meets certain criteria for "exempt" status. Companies have been doing this for years, making all their employees "executives" (and convincing them they are doing them an honor), then working them to death without pay. Eventually, most of them get caught. I know, I've been there. They are in violation of the Federal Wage and Hour Act. Look into it.

Not entierly true... If an employer gives a reason for your termination that can be proved completely false and that no reasonable action took place to prove/disprove the reason for termination (due process), that employer is on the hook for back wages and other damages.

If they had just said, "We don't feel you're the right fit for the company," sure you could release them without much fear of backlash. However, if you fire with cause, and that cause if proven to be false, made up, or otherwise bogus, you have a great case.

Please save your pointless "at-will" comments, you don't have clue-one as to what you're talking about.

Michael is correct. An "at will" employee may be fired for any reason, provided it does not violate some other protective statute like discrimination or retaliation for example. When terminated, it is up to the employee to sue for recourse, but finding a lawyer to take your case is next to impossible. The "at will" statutes are often called "right to work" as in, you have the right to be employed without being required to sign a union contract. Right-to-work is essentially a gift to employers courtesy of the anti-worker GOP. The anti-worker party has very successfully convinced the working people of this country that unions are bad and consequently, the workers themselves, by voting anti-union have almost destroyed the only thing that stands between them and their own exploitation. The result is fewer protections and lower pay and benefits for workers. Studies have shown in fact that the primary difference between right-to-work states and others employment-wise, is lower pay and benefits. Many workers are now afraid to ask for a raise or voice their opinion about safety or anything else for fear of being fired without cause. Retaliation, discrimination, and other exceptions to "at will" employment are very difficult to prove. It is what it is folks. You asked for it and you got it.

Since everything is hate speech now the company could say it was an anti-Catholic protest. I think its just stupid. My mom had a boss who could never remember names so they fixed him and all the women wore red one day they forgot to tell Ted the only guy in the department and all the guys started calling him Theodora after he showed up in a red shirt too. The boss learned everybody's name though.

lynsypug- you can't collect unemployment if you get fired...

Wrong, only if your employer CHALLENGES your unemployment claim AND WINS do you lose the right to collect unemployment. It has nothing to do with being "fired", if they cant prove incompetence or gross insubordination it will usually be viewed as a layoff eligible for payments.

xccam: Here I am. So what is is such a non-Story. Wow got fired, go get another job. Easy.

XCCAM it comes down to this.

1. Dont like your job then go get another one.

2. Dont like your pay go get another one.

See the thing about it is you see UNION as this great thing for the working people, yet you fail to see that its the UNIONS that are killing JOBS, making jobs move over seas.

Unions back in the good old days were good for the workers. Yet now days Unions are not the answer, unions of today are not nor never will be the Unions of the past.

Only possible chance I found was this:

Are you people all STUPID?? If they sue, the will be suing LAWYERS. They don't have a chance. Lawyers ALWAYS win. Doesnt matter who's side you're on!!!

At worst a few bucks will change hands in the back room or on a golf course. Justice can be bought these days. Where have you been living? EVERYTHING is for sale in the land of the BANKSTER. The Corporation of the United States of Amercia has assured that. The victims will remain the losers.

See ya in court on the basis of what? Did these employees have a contract guaranteeing them a job for life?

Here's a suggestion. Worry more about your job than happy hour.

Where is wearing orange a disregard for their jobs, not a happy hour guy but dont understand how wearing orange is more worried about happy hour than your job? Oreally is way off base with that statement!

o'really, the company should be supporting the employees partaking as a team in happy hour on Fridays. On the other hand, while nobody is guaranteed a job for life, people should be able to expect reasonable job security as long as they are doing their job. To be fired for wearing an orange shirt when there is no policy against it is wrong in so many ways. I hope these former employees win a nice law suit against this crooked firm.

O'really - No one said there was anything wrong with the job they were doing. Typical anti-worker comment from one who is probably totally ignorant about labor history or is a corporate shill.

Pull your patties out of your crack! If there was no office policy or directive against wearing Orange to work (in writing) then even a lousy Labor Lawyer will fix Ms. Lizzy Wellborn's Nazi like stand against "inappropriate" office wear! The worst thing that can happen to Ms. Wellborn's law practice is what's happening on blogs like this............Bad Publicity over a stupid stance against a group of fun loving employees.

Sounds like the lawyers need to learn that the common denominator amonst people and what makes a level playing field is violence. Fear and intimidation reach evertone.

Did the executives that stubbornly stuck to this decision to fire everyone, did these "suits" ever do something noticeably happy any day in their life when they were off-duty and building teamwork and camaraderie with their peers? By the judgement of their own actions then, for setting the example, they should tender their resignations and terminate their own employment from the company. Otherwise, they'll be perceived as double-standard hypocrites, and on the grapevine, lose their credibility as being fair and just in the decisions they make in their professional legal careers.

The executives who did the firing sound extremely paranoid,nutty,and hysterical.They either panicked or flew into a blind rage and fired the entire group for wearing orange shirts because they were convinced that the orange shirts were a symbol of some kind of protest.

Even if-god forbid-the employees were protesting something, apparently hearing their workers out about their concerns was a completely foreign and concept to this bunch of senior managers and something to be avoided at any cost.

Glad to see you all made up your mind after hearing one side of the story -- the aggrieved workers. Never mind hearing about these workers' actions that might have led up to the firing, let's just believe there's a law firm that would fire 13 employees for no reason other than the color of their shirts.

Wayne, let me explain it to you. When you get up in the morning and decide what to wear to work, dressing for happy hour instead of your job shows where your priorties are. Actually coordinating your outfits with others shows your head's not in the job, you are simply waiting for the day to be over so you can go out and socialize instead of actually working and earning your salary. Killing time till bar time.

A law firm has clients and others in and out all day, and a professional environment is necessary to instill confidence in those clients. A staff dressed in play clothes, or in a color that will prompt questions -- Why is everybody in orange? Oh, we're all going to the bar to spend our paychecks! -- can cause the firm to lose clients and their reputation and ultimately, money.

It would be just as unprofessional and distracting if the group showed up in baseball uniforms for the after-work game. Bring a gym bag and change your clothes after 5:00.

O really, You sound like an employer... These people did not show up in "baseball uniforms". They didn't show up in bathing suits or nude. Whats the big problem with orange shirts? Did they all line up and show off their shirts to the clients? Orange shirts can be actually very attractive. BTW people actually have lives outside of a job. Employers are getting a little too heavy handed. That is why I retired at 40 and my husband @ 47. I can dress up in a clown suit if I feel like it...

We are so PC these days that we don't teach these things like we used too. Like the PC principal who decicded St Patrick was too religious so she changed it to O'Green day. If she knew some history she would have known that didn't make it less religious that turned a nice all inclusive Irish holiday into a Catholic one. All I hope is nobody turns her loose on Texas maps I'll never find my Aunts house in Corpus Christi( the body of Christ) in San Patricio county.

Glad to see you all made up your mind after hearing one side of the story -- the aggrieved workers. Never mind hearing about these workers' actions that might have led up to the firing, let's just believe there's a law firm that would fire 13 employees for no reason other than the color of their shirts.

Your 'logic' defies reason. Certainly a employer can fire anyone they want for what ever reasons they like. If this astute law firm was looking to axe 13 employees, I would have to wonder why so many and why all at once? Usually (and especially lawyers) know how to pick their battles and prosecute (argue) their cases. If there was a problem (other than the Orange clothing fiasco) going on, why hasn't that info been brought forth by the employees, Press or employer? From the article we understand that there may have been NO office policy regarding a "No Orange dress code" for employees. The Devil is in the details and if these people were fired without reason, they have a civil case. As a employer, if you want regulation in the workplace to be LEGALLY enforced, it has to be in writing and in some situations, the policy has to be countersigned by the employees stating they understand the policy. Sounds like that probably didn't happen in this case.

If you had read the article more closely you would have seen that they had done this same thing months ago for the reason stated. What evidence do you have that this was subordination? There was nothing in the article that would indicate anything that had to do with a "new manager", let alone his skin tone. There indeed may be more to this story, but unless you can cite a source I have to assume you are simply making parts of this story up for your own hidden reasons.

Rob -

If I had read the article more closely? The one that doesn't have the very information that I mention in my comments?

Of course they had been doing it for months. It was an ongoing pattern of harassing their manager.

No there is nothing in THIS article about what I've mentioned, but that doesn't make it untrue. Nor does it mean there's a source I can cite at this time (nor may there ever be, because who knows how much of this will continue to be a public, newsworthy story.)

But none of those things ALSO mean I'm making it up for some nefarious purpose of my own.

God save us from people with deductive reasoning skills like yours.

Looks like someone doesn't understand the subtleties of Sarcasm, ceecee.

has this world gone absolutly CRAZY LMAO !!!!! your damned if you dont and damned if you do .

I have a great idea ......next friday no matter where you work everyone wear a orange shirt to work.

Sometimes bosses are just @!$%#s. I worked at a bar/restaurant where we were all treated like "one big family". One Wednesday, a manager informed me that the bar would be locked and shuttered next Monday when we came to work- the owners were closing down, and had no intentions of telling any of us. The manager felt too bad about it to keep his mouth shut.

The owners and their entire extended family had the gall to come in and eat on the last night the place was open, not knowing that we all knew what was going on. I won't begin to mention what we put in their food and drinks. Normally I'm not petty, but that was a lot of fun watching them eat their "last meal"...

Shortly after that, they left, and then all of our friends (a couple hundred) showed up and drank for free all night! Payback's a bitch!

for all you youngsters! The origin of wearing orange on St Patrick's day was in support of William of Orange of GB. It is a knock against the Irish! We used to do it over 50 years ago, just to bust the chops of our Irish friends!! THe big boss must be on old Irishman!! I can see no reason for firing if they did it customarily!

No, wearing orange on St. Patrick's Day is definitely a not a "Knock against the Irish."A lot of Irish protestants wear orange on March 17, the anniversary of the day that St. Patrick passed away, and a lot of Irish Catholics wear green that day. On the Irish flag we have an orange bar and a green bar symbolizing protestants and Catholics, and a white bar between the two colors, symbolizing peace between the two.In the U.S., of course most people, no matter how they believe, just wear green on March 17 to give a nod to Irish heritage, but wearing orange that day would be taken by most people of Irish decent to mean that you were proud of being a protestant.

KC, thanks for the explanation. All these years I thought I was ribbing my Irish friends!! (most of them were Catholic!)

I totally agree, monnie. Once you get on the bosses' you-know-what list, they will use any excuse in the book to justify firing you...even breathing. I've been there and done that too. You either drink the corporate kool-aid and make your manager your god, or you can kiss your job good-bye.

They didn't show up dressed for work, they showed up dressed for the party after work. That might have given the appearance that they put the after work party ahead of their job, sort of starting the weekend early. I agree, they should have saved the party uniform for the day's end.

A lot of people with JD behind their name don't know everything that they should about employment law-especially if employment law isn't their area of expertise.

Also some employers completely panic when they're convinced that their employees are organizing together about complaints in the workplace.

You think having a law degree makes you smart?

Completely agree...having a law degree is NO INDICATION of intelligence or common sense. I was let go from a staff position at law firm two years ago. When I found out that part-time employees had been retained, I asked the managing partner if he thought he'd hurt my feelings by offering me at least a part time position: his response was "if we paid you part time salary, you wouldn't be eligible for unemployment benefits"!! When I responded that he was absolutely wrong, he said "I'm not an employment law attorney!" Good thing: employment law advice like that to a client could mean malpractice lawsuit. After a career in the business, I can tell you attorneys are some of the dumbest folks on the planet...

You are absolutely right...This is ridiculous. Waste of time and resources

Don't Forget, if the State no fault state, then one could get fired for anything but discrimination. Wearing orange is not discrimination. They could have changed cloths after work.

They could have changed clothes after work; and probably would have if only just asked to do so.

The First Amendment (which applie to state action, not private employers) does not give one the right to dress however s/he pleases for work, although anti discrimination legislation does protect religious dress if reasonable accommodation can be made to safety concerns this dress may create. But, it really seems unreasonable for an employer to fire people for their dress without first setting up a dress code!

Need the government's permission to fire someone! At the speed the government works it could take months or years. Small business in this country does not want or need any more government intervention. Small business works in the US. The govenment is what is broke, figuratively and financially.

Maybe a Communist society would give you a more suitable work enviroment.

that's cause capitals is considered yelling, and newsvine doesn't want you and a million other jackasses like you yelling...

OMG! Someone is yelling. Call out the national guard...What wimps. BTW who are YOU to call anyone a "jackass"? YOU have some nerve.

Most law firm employees do not have written contracts. Without one setting out specific obligaitons for employment, and if this is in an "at will" state, my guess is that the old maxim applies. You can fire them for no reason as long as it is not the wrong reason (discrimination, gender, age, etc).