C&L: "Laid off my first Obama voting employee today...It is kind of interesting watching their face"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Doctor targets Obama voters for layoffs in advance of "Obamacare"
By karoli Sunday Apr 11, 2010 7:00am

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/doctor-targets-obama-voters-lay-advance-oba



First there was Dr. Cassell firing patients. Then there's "dermdoc" bragging on a message board that he has just laid off his first Obama-voting employee. From CBS News' Political Hotsheet:

Last Friday, someone going by the name "dermdoc" posted a thread on a message board for Texas A&M students and alumni with this topic: "Laid off my first Obama voting employee today."

"Our reimbursement rates are spiraling downward, taxes are projected to go up with Obamacare, so I did it," the person wrote. He later added: "I made this decision because I can."

"It is kind of interesting watching their face as you explain to them the economic consequences of the policies of the guy they voted for," wrote dermdoc.

The original message board thread has now been removed, but that didn't deter "dermdoc" from expanding on his original thesis.

"Elections have consequences," wrote dermdoc. "If you vote for someone who raises my taxes and lowers my income, you pay the cost."

"My office manager and med business guru have calculated that this is just the beginning. Tax rates are going to go through the roof with additional Obamacare taxes AND the expiration of the Bush tax cuts," he added. "And most analysts think reimbursement rates for docs will go down about 20-25% the next 2 years, and that is BEFORE Obamacare really kicks in."

[hobbit709]

1. It would be intersting to watch dermdoc's face

When he gets a call from a lawyer.

[bigtree]

2. .

+ . . .

[Craftsman]

12. TX is an at will employment state

You can be let go for any reason, including the way you part your hair. There is no case here.

[hobbit709]

14. True but there are some limits-not many but some

I know a person that sued for wrongful termination and won here in TX.

[Craftsman]

20. He is not being terminated, he was laid off

Reading the post he did a lay off due to money issues. He was choosen for a lay off due to being an Obama supporter.

[Sanity Claws]

30. Same thing

The point is that he was selected for termination because of the way he voted.
One's employment is terminated in a lay off, you know.

[Stevenmarc]

39. .

[surrealAmerican]

54. Not necessarily.

It may be that all this doctor's employees voted for Obama. The doctor was not clear on that point.

[harkadog]

59. Politics is not a protected class in employment law

[MattBaggins]

62. But coercing a persons vote?

[harkadog]

77. We might not like it but the case would go no where in any of the 50 states.

To challenge a termination it has to fall within protected classes. Politics is just not one of them. If it was organizations like the DNC or your local county Democratic party could be sued if they did not hire a Republican.

[MattBaggins]

79. I'm not suggesting challenging the termination

Challenge the attempt to interfere with the right to vote freely.

Termination of employment <------> Coercion of vote

Everyone is looking at the wrong side of the equation.

[harkadog]

84. So if a person working for the Democratic party

was found to be a registered Republican voter the DNC should be prohibited from firing him?

[MattBaggins]

88. DNC, RNC Churches et al...

Question would be under what type of charter they operate under.

[harkadog]

89. DNC and RNC are incorported just like GM.

[TexasObserver]

24. Texas is employment at will, but there's still federal and state causes of action.

Your statement that "there is no case here" is incorrect. There is a case here, and an employment law attorney will know what it is. Discrimination under federal law is always available. Even under state law, retribution firings are compensable.

While it is true that the derm doctor could fire the employee without stating a reason, by stating the reason and tying it to the person's vote, he has engaged in political retribution, and the case is likely compensable.

The lawyers who handle these matters are listed under "employment law" and in a client interview will learn if there are facts to support a case. This factual situation may lead to a compensable case, depending on all the relevant facts, which may include other things the dermdoc has said in the work environment. It's unlikely he's never let his feelings be known to this Obama voter before. If he had never tied the firing to the voting, he would likely have had no problem with the firing. By opening his big mouth, he has exposed himself to a claim for retribution.

If the plaintiff's attorney can get the case to a jury, they'll win it.

Here's a helpful online source, which addresses some of the avenues available. I do not vouch for this law firm, or know anything about it. There are many such online summaries available. I chose this one for purposes of information only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retaliation in employment is much more common these days as shown by the EEOC statistics; so an experienced Retaliation Discharge Employment lawyer is ready to discuss your case with you and how he can help you.

Workplace retaliation claims account for an ever-growing portion of employment litigation nationwide. Anti-retaliation prohibitions in employment law are wide-ranging and cross statutory and common law lines. Generally speaking, an employer may not retaliate against an employee or applicant because that employee or applicant exercised a right or engaged in an activity protected by law. Protected activities include: employee opposition to perceived violations of law by the employer, especially illegal discrimination, and participation in the process or prosecution of a protected claim or lawsuit. For example, an employee who casually complained to his or her employer about race discrimination would be protected from retribution for this assertion, as would be the employee who filed a more formal charge of discrimination or a lawsuit based on the same claim. In addition to race, the underlying issues supporting an allegation of retaliation include claims of sex, pregnancy, religion, age, and disability discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In addition, claims of retaliation may be brought based on rights protected under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley), and other federal statutes. Retaliation claims may also be raised under other state statutes. Discrimination motivated by the employee's filing of, or participation in, a workers' compensation claim proceeding would, for example, be illegal retaliation.

Adverse reactions that an employee might suffer are: firing, refusal to promote or hire, threats, unjustified negative reviews or other actions against the employee, increased surveillance of employee or even assault. Slight annoyances, petty acts, or negative comments justified by poor work performance are not considered retaliation. Protected participation activities include such things as making a complaint to a governmental authority, filing a charge or lawsuit, helping another to file or prosecute a charge or lawsuit, testifying in such a charge or lawsuit, and related activities. To state a claim for retaliation, the individual must establish: s/he engaged in protected participation or opposition, the employer was aware of the activity, s/he suffered adverse treatment following the protected activity, and a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action. Once these are established, the burden of proof shifts to the employer for an alternate reason for the adverse reaction. As with discrimination claims, it is imperative that the employee pursue and exhaust all available administrative remedies first. The precedent set is that the court will only allow issues that were raised in the claim during the administrative process, so retaliation would be included in this requirement.

The amount of retaliation claims filed has more than doubled in the last decade. In 2004, the EEOC received almost 23,000 retaliation claims and resolved almost 25,000. Timing is also important in retaliation cases, so even if you are still attempting administrative remedies, you should seek the advice of an employment attorney for guidance in your retaliation claim.


http://www.employmentattorney.org/termination/retaliation.php

[vduhr]

69. I also live in an 'at will' State and a company I used to work for...

laid off two employees and told them that their positions were being eliminated. The company immediately hired two younger employees to fill the positions (didn't elimate the positions as they had said). The two laid off workers filed suit and won.

Although it is true that in an at-will State, an employer can fire some one without giving reason, it does not mean you can fire them for any reason. I think most people get that confused.

[TexasObserver]

92. Yes, most people do get that confused.

If an employer in Texas fires an employee with no stated reason at all, and there's no history of anything communicated to the employee (or any history suggesting retributive conduct), there's almost no chance of a claimant succeeding in a wrongful termination case. Of course, if they're obviously letting go of every employee over 55 and replacing them with younger people, that's the kind of circumstantial evidence that can be compelling. If they're firing the woman the boss had the affair with, because his wife found out, that's actionable, of course.

Anyone who thinks they may have an employment case should at least call a few attorneys who advertise that specialty. At a minimum, they will learn a little about such claims, and will find out if they have a case.

As usual, the GOP promoted fiction is that it's easy to win such cases. In fact, it's very hard, and most seeking an attorney will not find one who will take their case on a contingency.

[vduhr]

96. I think some employers don't understand that either...

My son was talking to a friend last night and she told him her father had been layed off, and the employer told him it was because of his age...AND, they put it in writing. LOL, I hope he goes to see a lawyer today - what a great case!

[DailyGrind51]

60. IL is also, all an employer needs to say is "Your services are no longer required."

You can be terminated without cause.

[MattBaggins]

61. Wrong crime bud

Who cares about "at will". The crime isn't laying off the employee, the crime should be trying to coerce a vote from someone.

[Craftsman]

85. The vote is already over

[MattBaggins]

87. Is he not trying to "teach a lesson" and influence the next vote as well?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. See Post #72

~

[Blue_In_AK]

76. It does seem like some civil rights might have been violated

here, though. It would be an interesting case for some lawyer to take on.

[slampoet]

98. It is also an open weapon carry state were it is easy to get ammo.

[HuckleB]

27. He's probably not even a doctor.

[spanone]

3. fuck him and his practice.

[MadHound]

4. Sounds like dermdoc's former employee has a great legal case,

And can take dermdoc's every last cent.

[Sanity Claws]

6. probably not

In most jurisdictions, political affiliation is not a protected class. This means the employer can legally discriminate based on political affiliation.

[MadHound]

9. However I think that a case for voter intimidation could be made

Trying to influence a person's vote via hiring or firing is wrong, and I think that a good case could be made.

Hopefully the victim goes ahead and brings this to court, otherwise we're going to see a rash of these kinds of actions in the future. This notion has been floating around in the conservative blogosphere since Obama won, and it needs to be slapped down quickly.

[Sanity Claws]

10. The vote has already occurred

He was discriminated against based on a past vote.
You may say it is case of chilled speech but I don't think it will fly, at least not in private employment. If a state or local government had done, I'd say that guy has a good chance to win.

[MadHound]

17. I recognize that the vote already occurred,

However being fired from one job due to your vote is going to have a chilling effect the next time you vote.

[Sanity Claws]

18. Yes

I stated that in my post to you.
I think the legal basis is rather quixotic, particularly in light of the present judiciary. I think it would be thrown out on summary judgment. If he goes to trial and wins, he will lose on appeal. I sincerely think that not a single Court of Appeals would rule for him. It'll take a while before we get away from the RW bias of the judiciary.

[DearAbby]

91. Not only their vote...but others in the office

who don't want to be next on the list.

[seabeyond]

5. so, nothing has changed, nothing has happened, he just said FUCK YOU to an

employee for no valid reason. and that makes him a piece of shit republican and human being

[xchrom]

7. I can't wait when this moron's 15 minutes is up.

And by the way -- at this point I believe this guy is being
directed by repuke operatives.

[KittyWampus]

22. I'm not sure I believe this "guy" is really even a doctor.

Edit- all kinds of people say all kinds of things on the internet.

[smoogatz]

32. Yep.

By the same token, there are wingnut doctors, just as there are wingnut used car dealers and wingnut plumbers. Most of the docs I've talked to, though (and both of my parents in-law are practicing MDs) feel that, if anything, HIR didn't go far enough. They hate the insurance companies, are sick of dealing with them, and see the effects of the unregulated insurance market in their patients' health every day. They're doing just fine financially, btw, and aren't anticipating any need for layoffs (if this guy's a TX doc, he may actually be hurting as a result of STATE cuts to Medicare, and is just too intellectually dishonest to include that little detail). But hey, I guess if you're just in it for the buck, then any change is cause for panic.

[HelenWheels]

42. Single payer

My doctor told me a few years ago we should have single payer health care, but then he is a great guy. Dermdoc is a typical repuke bully.

[smoogatz]

57. Single payer would simplify everyone's lives, for sure.

My MIL pays a woman full-time, $65-70k/year just to deal with insurance claims. She also pays $200k/year for malpractice insurance, even though she's never been sued (and this is in SoCal, where doctors ALWAYS get sued). With single payer, she wouldn't have either of those headaches. She might not gross as much, but she wouldn't need to.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

86. Ron Paul is a doctor. Tom Coburn is a doctor.

Ron Paul is an OB/GYN in Lake Jackson, Texas, and has been practicing for at least 35 to 40 years.

He says he has never had a patient who needed an abortion to save her life, in all of his time practicing.
That is statistically impossible, since a woman who has a tubal pregnancy must have the tube and the embryo removed or it will rupture and she will DIE.

Lying scumbag.

[whistler162]

55. Been up for a few years now.... reads like a rewriting of

"I fired a Democrat" email/forum post that went around a few years ago.

[Sheepshank]

8. I don't think political affiliation...

...is a protected class.

Any lawsuit will have difficulty prevailing.

Maybe it should be made a protected class?

[Oceansaway]

11. fuk nuts...n/t

[tridim]

13. I bet he'll hire a Repug to replace the Dem.

The fired Dem and his lawyer should keep an eye out for when this happens.

[Craftsman]

21. In TX he has no case, at will employment

[tridim]

31. Except it would prove his "reasoning" for the layoff is BS.

[goldcanyonaz]

50. Not true if one can prove they lost their job due to retaliation.

[krispos42]

15. And that's how one-sided the power structure is

You really can't punish your employer for voting Republican and thus cutting your personal income and/or raising your taxes unless you're in a really organized union.

But organized capital can punish you for not letting them rape your wallet.

Great, just great. Not to mention it's a bunch of BS to begin with. The employer's political party of choice didn't make the tax cuts permenant... so he fires a democratic employee??? And what about fiscal responsibilty and balanced budgets?


Yeah, they care about balanced budgets just like they care about "winning" in Iraq... they're all for it, but they're not going to do a damn thing themselves. Not pay a penny more in taxes or spend a day in uniform.



Man, I guess it's time for Democratic business owners to start firing Republican employees. "I have no customers because people YOU voted for have destroyed discretionary spending for 95% of my potential customers. Sorry, elections have consequences."

[OneGrassRoot]

16. And Boortz is actively encouraging this....

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/hatriot-neal-boortz-thinks-obama-voters-sho


:mad:

[fasttense]

19. If you get fired for political speech, is it legal?

The only way idiotdoc, I mean dermdoc, knew the employee was a liberal was from what the employee said. So, employees are getting fired for their political speech. How is that freedom of speech? I ain't and America doesn't have anything resembling Freedom of speech, if you can be fired for expressing your politics. Just think of all the thousands of people Wal-Mart has fired because they mentioned the word UNION.

So when all those multinational corporations fired us were they saying it's because bush destroyed the economy? When they fire us because they sent the factory to China, do they say it's because you fools support "free" trade. No, they lie about why they fire us just like dermdoc is lying now.

[NC_Nurse]

23. I wouldn't want to work for that prick anyway. What a jerk. I think this will

come back to bite him in the ass someday. Hopefully sooner than later.

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. Welcome to my neighborhood.

One caveat. A dem can redeem himself to these cretins if he proves he's a "good buddy." It's all about the parties coming together in the Chamber of Commerce. The only problem is, that the wealth doesn't spread beyond them.

[Arkana]

26. That sumbitch is lying through his teeth.

They gloated about doing this when Obama was elected and it was bullshit then too.

[drm604]

28. I wonder if this could be considered voter intimidation?

I understand that the employer can layoff at will and that the employee has little legal recourse on that basis, but could this be considered voter intimidation?

[WillyT]

29. It's A Secret Ballot... How Does This Fuck No Who Voted For Who ???

And if it can be proven that this douche-bag overheard/asked the employee about his voting record...

Can he be sued for wrongful termination? - Even if it's a lay-off???

:mad:

[slackmaster]

33. "Obama voting employee" is sooper seekrit code for gay, out, and African-American

Didn't you get the memo?

[backscatter712]

46. I think you're on to something.

Aside from looking for Obama bumperstickers in the parking lot or the grapevine, there's not a heck of a lot that the owner can do to determine which of his employees are Obama voters. But hey, he thinks he has an excuse for firing blacks, Latinos, gays, etc.

Although I was under the impression that it was illegal to fire people over political beliefs.

[slackmaster]

53. It's absolutely not illegal to fire people over political beliefs

In most cases you don't need any reason at all to terminate an employee.

[OnionPatch]

38. This was my thought, too.

We have a secret ballot for this very reason. Voter intimidation has been going on since people first started voting. It was wrong then and it still is. But good question. It seems like it should be illegal to fire someone based on their political views, and this guy admitted that's just what he did. :shrug:

[tammywammy]

67. Maybe he drove around with an Obama bumper sticker on his car. n/t

[drm604]

34. What an idiot.

"It is kind of interesting watching their face as you explain to them the economic consequences of the policies of the guy they voted for," wrote dermdoc.

What an idiot. The expressions on their face were probably due to the fact that he was taking away their livelihood, not because he'd convinced them of his Republican agenda. If anything he probably drove them further to the left.

Is he really claiming that a bill that was just passed and hasn't even gone into effect yet has already cut his income so much that he has to layoff some of his employees?

If his business is so beleaguered financially, shouldn't his layoff choices be based on purely business reasons such as the skill level or cost of each particular employee?

[Downtown Hound]

35. I have serious doubts that this is real

It sounds like some lonely douche bag looking for attention and trying to make himself out to be a bigger man than he really is.

[Ikonoklast]

43. Agree. This never happened.

Just made-up nonsense by a Basement Irregular Militiaman.

[jberryhill]

44. It's just as impressive how gullible people are at assuming it is real /nt

[lolly]

45. Yeah, I'll add to the chorus

And call b.s. on this one.

One of the defining marks of wingnut b.s. is the lecture, where the brilliant right-winger eviscerates the simple socialist, who can only sit in mute astonishment as his better explains the truth to him.

Remember the wingnuts who refused to give tips to waitresses, supposedly lecturing them about how they were giving the money to bums instead, because in Obama's American, workers' money all goes to lazy welfarites? Anybody really believed waitresses all just stood and listened quietly to these enlightening lectures?

Sometimes it's their own kid at college, or one of their kids' friends. One bragged about disowning a kid who was planning to vote for Obama until the kid realized it would be in his best interests to vote for McCain--the arrogant dad seemed to know with absolute certainty what his child would do once in the privacy of the voting booth.

[DeschutesRiver]

51. I am hoping it is b.s., otherwise between Dr. Cassel and this dermdoc freak

there might be a whole lot more doctors of limited critical thinking abilities than I'd imagined. I listened to that stupid freaking urologist on some interview, and all he did was regurgitate some Faux News falsehoods. I think patients might be better off if some of these practitioners left the field.

My first thought when I read this was that no matter how much I whine or threaten to, I will NEVER sit out an election. I will vote democrat, and let the repubs know it and the chips fall where they may.

Right or wrong, from the elections on I have quit doing business with people who make their republican politics or racist thoughts or tea bagging nonsense known to me. I refuse to buy things or pay for services where the owner or employees believe they have the right to get in my face about their political beliefs, esp. where I've had to change the subject or ask them to tone it down until I am done doing business. It is stupid to pay for offensive political smack talk, along with whatever I needed to buy at such a place. It probably happens more to me now, because I am in a group of fairly small towns where everybody knows everybody.

The business owners on the right here are angry beyond the injuries they imagine they've suffered over the election of this black democrat president, and more likely to spew bile while at work, customers present notwithstanding. I don't go out of my way to deprive anyone of business or a livelihood; that said, I don't spend money or time where people of my political persuasion aren't welcome.

[laughingliberal]

49. They like to believe this cause it allows them a vicarious sense of revenge against people who

didn't vote the way they did. Conservatives hate the concept of majority rule unless they are in the majority.

[laughingliberal]

47. Yeah, I've seen this floating around. I put as much stock in it as the Easter Bunny

Reimbursement for doctors have not been cut at all by Medicare. They have failed to pass the 'doctor fix' but this is a recurring problem annually and no one expects it won't be done.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

64. The only thing teabaggers could lay off is a Big Mac

....and we know that ain't happening.

[dixiegrrrrl]

36. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Democratic Party"?

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Sounds to me like a blessing in disguise for the employee

The employee can now head down to the unemployment office, point to these posts, and hit the asshole for unemployment.

The employee is now shed of one ignorant asshole for an employer. I hope he or she gets back on his feet and finds somewhere that his or her skills will be appreciated and his or her views respected.

[Stevenmarc]

40. Dermdoc is a pimple on the butt of society

[quiet.american]

41. If real, the stupidity of this physician is stunning. nt

[graywarrior]

48. I worked at MGH for many years and my experience is that 50% of doctors are arrogant

know-it-alls who think they are better than anyone else. (At least the ones I worked with) I have a friend who teaches piloting and he told me his worst students are doctors followed by lawyers. They think they know everything.

[PA Democrat]

52. Hope this idiot's name goes public. Being an asshole has consequences.

I would not want to see ANY doctor who did this, no matter whose "side" he's on.

[Rex]

56. Poor doctor, I hope the guy he laid off for political reasons sues

his ass back into the stone age. You can lay people of for A LOT OF REASONS, but political affiliation is NOT one of them!

[Artie Bucco]

58. Texas A&M huh?

No surprised he graduated from a school full of weak-chinned, knuckle-dragging sons of bitches.

[Initech]

63. If I got fired because of who I voted for, I'd be raising fucking hell.

Fuck dermdoc and every teabagger who thinks like him. :argh:

[GreenPartyVoter]

65. Maybe stand on the sidewalk with a sign saying this guy fired me because of who I voted for. See if

maybe there are similar voters who want to switch docs.

[Initech]

66. Like this?

[GreenPartyVoter]

71. I like it!

[Vinca]

68. I'd be calling my attorney.

[B Calm]

70. It's illegal to fire someone because of who they voted for. They have

a very good chance of getting this old teabagger in a hell of lot of trouble!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. Most States Are "Fire At Will" Or "Fire Without Cause" States

But when you give a reason that you fired someone for their political views you open yourself up to a lawsuit even if political affiliation isn't a protected class. If the doc would have said "your services are no longer needed" he would have been on firmer ground.

I'm certain an attorney would back me up.

[B Calm]

75. People have fought and died for the right to vote. I hate to think this old veteran

could be fired because of who I voted for. They have a good case to put this idiot in his place, and I hope they do!

[SmileyRose]

73. Dermdoc is 100% correct - I agree with him completely

Dermdoc obviously voted for the very people responsible for lowering MY income and raising MY taxes - and now he is paying the cost for that.

Dermdoc, you are damn right elections have consequences. And if you had supported people who were more respectful of the other 99% of Americans rather than just your 1% I-got-mine-and-fuck-the-rest-of-you brotherhood of greedy assholes, then you would not be getting your ass whooped by Barack Obama and the (60%) 180 Million Americans who support him.


And I thank you for putting an experienced medical worker out into the job market. All those new primary care doctors will need a staff.....

[naaman fletcher]

82. Nice take on it, well said. nt.

[butterfly77]

78. DermDoc seems to be afraid...

that he will be targeted in some way.

[gratuitous]

80. It will be real interesting to watch dermdoc's face

When he realizes that all the work in the office was bing done by the goddam hippie socialists, and his appointment book has gone to hell in a handbasket because the nitwit piece of eye candy he hired doesn't have the brains God gave a turnip.

[naaman fletcher]

81. Not that they aren't evil enough to do it,

but most of these guys are internet tough guys. There is a good chance that he is lying to improve his "street cred" with other internet tough guys.

[Orsino]

83. Made-up. n/t

[WeDidIt]

90. So this fucked up doc has been sucking at the teet of the Federal govenrment for years

because there are no tax increases. Obama simply removed the double dipping where the docs accepted money and could write off the same anmount that they accepted.

He;s a fucking leech off the taxpayers, so he took it out on the people who put somebody in place who would disconnect the bloodsucking leeches in the medical system from the federal government teet.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. What a terrible businessman.

In every way.

[applegrove]

94. The rightwing in America. Trying to terrify Americans into voting for what rich people

want (low taxes).

[KonaKane]

95. When did Obama raise his taxes?

The vast majority of taxes were not raised, in fact went down under Obama. We just got a 3k return, the first time in 6 years.

I smell horseshit.

[tammywammy]

97. I saw another thread on here, he apparently confessed to making up the whole thing

And still blamed it on the evil libs. lol


edited to add: link http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8133421