US journalist who refused to go to Iraq to sue in Britain

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2005/June/theworld_June353.xml§ion=theworld

LONDON - A US television journalist who claims he was sacked for refusing to report from Iraq and Afghanistan was due to sue his former employer for millions of dollars in Britain later this week.

Richard Gizbert, a London-based reporter for US broadcaster ABC News from 1993, is seeking 2.2 million pounds (3.3 million euros, four million dollars) in lost earnings at a British employment tribunal starting on Tuesday. snip

“He told me: “We’ve decided to terminate you. ABC wants to replace you with a correspondent who will travel to war zones,’” Gizbert told the Los Angeles Times newspaper.

“I said, “You’re firing me because I won’t go to war zones?’ ’No,’ he said, “we’re terminating you and replacing you with someone who will.’ And I said: “Isn’t that the same thing?’”

[uppityperson]

1. Here, if terminated you maybe get unemployment benefits

maybe job retraining. If fired, you are usually able to get nothing. But it differs state to state also, so it may be a real difference, may be the same thing (euphnimism)

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. From what I think I remember being told about English employment law

an employer isn't allowed to terminate someone (ie make them redundant), and then immediately rehire for the same position - they have to wait some period (2 years seems to ring a bell, but I may have remembered the whole thing completely wrong). 'Firing' would of course be different; but according to this story, "his legal team is expected to argue that health and safety protections provided under UK employment law should apply to journalists employed in the UK but assigned to war zones in other countries", so that they couldn't claim they had a justification for firing him.

[spooky3]

3. I think the boss was giving the answer that would protect

him/her under US federal law only (wouldn't help if there were state protections or UK jurisdiction). Under employment at will, which this journalist may be, the employer can fire for no reason at all, so it usually behooves the employer not to give any reason--just say "you're fired." If the employer instead gives a reason, s/he gives the employee a possible basis for claiming unfairness that IS prohibited, such as discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex, etc. So technically, the way the employer is stating it, the journalist is being fired for "no reason."