IMO, generally speaking (the rules vary from state to state, of course) he has grounds for a legal action and a decent case. By that, I mean he has a case that would survive a summary judgment and get to a jury trial. At a jury trial in this type of thing, anything can happen.

Is the case worth pursuing? That's another question. I don't think it is so good that you will find a great (or even really good) contingency lawyer to take it. (If the races of the various parties were reversed, you might). If a good lawyer isn't willing to fund the case, that's usually a good sign that you shouldn't, either.

Some would depend on the company, and their history, have they done this in the past to others, have they been sued for it by others, are they sensitive to this type of lawsuit, etc. etc. etc. In addition to needing to know the state law and general attitude of the judicial system and juries in the area, you need to know about the company and how they are likely to react.

Was this all done verbally? From what you wrote they might have grounds to demote him, but they used the wrong reason. i.e. 'threatening' an employee.

I would start by asking for a written explaination from the employer and telling them that you will be starting legal proceedings if they refuse to document their case.

Is there such a thing as 'constructive dismissal' in Florida? Essentially it says that by demoting and reducing pay you are basically firing them. In this case dismissal seems to be an overly severe penalty.

I can see no race issue here.

Was either employee a union member?

And your friend might have handled it 'man-to-man'. But he handled it wrong.

No, He's a resident working in a "right to work" state, he could be demoted or fired because the boss didn't like his hair cut last week. What others have said is true unless he claims discrimination based on disability, gender, age or race he has no leg to stand on. It's a hire and fire at will state, no explanation required. He was probably demoted so they could avoid a racial lawsuit by the cook and avoid an unemployment insurance claim by not firing him.

From what he told me, this was all verbal. He made no mention of anything being presented to him in writing about the actual reason for demotion, other than, "He lost control of the kitchen and threatened an employee". Except for the security camera footage, it appears to be word against word.

Constructive dismissal? I have no idea. That's a good one. I'll look into it.

The race issue is simply my take on it. I think the "family" is scared $hitless of a racially charged lawsuit. Maybe they have been in a similar situation before and can't afford to even risk an out of court settlement. Again, they threw a 15 year veteran under the bus over a repeated uniform violation by a less-than-perfect employee. I smell fear.

No unions involved here, as far as I know.

Thanks for the input, gentlemen. Keep the ideas coming. I forwarded a link of this thread to him and we'll see what happens when (if) he talks to an attorney.

When he speaks with attorneys, the bottom line question he needs to focus on will be this: "Mr. Atty, will you take this case on a contingency?"

If, after explaining his case, some atty will take it on a contingency, then your friend has something to think about.

If no atty will, then it's over, just move on.

He should give up on this one and get a better job (sounds like he has experience so it should be no problem), Like others mentioned, if he fights it they will make is work life with them SUCK; if fear of color really was the reason they demoted him they wont change now and fire the cook rather than Steve.

First the version is this:


Then it is this:


Don't mean to go defense lawyer on you, but the first version suggests there was a physical confrontation.

Look, bottom line: If he likes his job and wants to tryto get his old position back he needs to calmly sit down with the owners and let them know he feels he's vbeing treated unfauirly. If they don't try to make it right by him given his long history with the company, then he needs to walk.

Problem is there is so little in damages that it probably isn't worthwhile to sue.

If he is truely good at what he does, there are plenty of restaurants that would love to have him on their staff.

Time to go somewhere where he is appreciated.

From what he told me, the picture I have in my mind is of a guy reprimanding his buddy for doing something stupid. In this case, wearing your pants halfway down your legs AGAIN. The buddy recognizes he's done something stupid, AGAIN, and everything is cool. Well, clearly it was not.

I agree with you, though. He really needs to get the hell out of there. Problem with that, however, is that the economy is in recession (can I say that? It hasn't been two quarters in a row...) and the restaurant industry is taking a beating right now. Not many good places looking to hire.

If he walked up to an employee and pulled that employee's shirt up, he's too stupid to be a manager anywhere.

That's just from a common sense standpoint, not a legal one (which usually has absolutely nothing to do with common sense).

It's not at all uncommon for a family business, after getting good and burned once...to over-react to future situations by just immediately terminating. This is seen as the lower risk option..even if the situation involves an otherwise good employee who made a human mistake.

I have seen this happen and it's not at all pretty. It's unfortunate that the non-protected folks are often needlessly paying with their careers for what a protected worker could do 10 times before being called out by management these days.

So your friend is lucky to still have a job there...not to mention his silly behavior. You never, ever, ever touch a subordinate.

That was my first thought. He touched the guy! WTF was he thinking? If he were my employee, he would have been sent to mandatory classes on sexual harassment and anger management. If he were a marginal employee I would have fired him.

Guys, guys ....
My whole intention in describing the scenario as a "man-to-man" talk was to illustrate the absence of malice or aggression in this "confrontation". I'm sure he "touches" co-workers all the time during day to day operations. It's a kitchen, for crying out loud. Have you ever "touched" a co-worker?

The difference here is that the guy used the contact (and subsequent verbal warning) as a springboard to elevate the situation to its current state because he didn't like being told what to do.

In hindsight should he have grabbed the guy's shirt? Well obviously not, but that's Monday morning quarterbacking.

It doesn't sound like you realize what a big issue that is. It was extremely poor judgement. He's lucky he still has a job.

Moses, I understand the dynamics of superior vs. subordinate contact. I get that.

What I am apparently doing a poor job of illustrating is that by Steve's account (and that's all I have to go on), this was not a physical confrontation. This was not a shouting match. This was not an altercation. This was not an argument. This was a 5-10 second verbal exchange. This was simply a guy telling another guy, whom he happens to work with every day, that he is in violation of company rules and he should probably shape up or he's going to have to officially reprimand him. I may have painted the picture that Steve jerked the guy's shirt up or somehow displayed aggression towards the cook, but that was not the impression that I got when Steve acted out the incident for me.

The problem I have with this whole incident, and I have from the start, is that the cook and kitchen manager took an otherwise forgettable incident and used it to stick it to "the man", and the higher-ups at the restaurant ran in fear.

I don't believe he did anything wrong, but that is not really the issue.

I am sure the owners felt they had no choice. If your friend plays nice, they will wait until this blows over and move him back up. Meanwhile, he should quietly start investigating other opportunities...just in case they do not.

The worst thing he can do is file a lawsuit or act like he is no longer a valuable of loyal employee. he will lose his job and find it near impossible to find a similar position with a firing for abusing subordinate."

Oh come on. He's management! A few simple rules;

1) If possible, discuss sensitive issues with employees in private. If you need a witness, have another manager present.

2) Never, ever touch an employee in any way that causes them harm or embarrassment.

3) Lifting a shirt to expose an employees ass is sexual harassment. No way around that one.

A competent manager would have called the cook to the side and calmly told him, "Take the rest of the day off. When you come back tomorrow, I expect you to be dressed appropriately" Pretty simple, really.

I don't know how much you have done blue collar work...if ever...but it is a whole different world.

Give the cook the rest of the day off?...and close the restraurant for the day? He would have been fired anyways.

Update:

Just got off the phone with Steve. The dust is settling...

Looks like the restaurant has decided to offer an olive branch. They are sending him to another store for the interim. His pay is still being cut, but not by the original 30-40%. More like 20-30%. Still a bit harsh in my opinion. The offending cook continues to violate the uniform policy and is still unable to arrive to work on time. He has not been reprimanded in any way.

They have guaranteed (like a "guarantee" means anything from these spineless ass-clowns) that he will get his original title back as well as his own store within 3 months. The salary deficit will have to work its way back down over time.

All in all I guess that's a pretty good outcome. I still have a really bad taste in my mouth over this whole PC-run-amuck incident. Steve learned not to touch anybody at work (he says he will no longer shake hands, back-pat or hug fellow employees or customers) and both the cook and kitchen manager have learned that they can play the race card whenever it benefits them.

Way to go Flanigans!

ml