Wallace v. UGG

[ciroccoj]

I love it when judges know that what they're saying will be attacked in the future, and try to head off such attacks within the present decision. For example, re. the obligation to not show "bad faith" when terminating employees (eg humiliate them, accuse them of theft without proof, refuse letters of reference, lay them off during sick leave, lay them off after assuring them that their job is secure, etc), Supreme Court Justice Iacobucci had this to say in a landmark case:

I note that there may be those who would say that this approach imposes an onerous obligation on employers. I would respond simply by saying that I fail to see how it can be onerous to treat people fairly, reasonably, and decently at a time of trauma and despair. In my view, the reasonable person would expect such treatment. So should the law.
Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701, Iacobucci J

Comments

[snarkhunter.livejournal.com]

From your subject line, I was really hoping that someone had, like, sued UGG boots.

B/c that would be awesome.

[bandgeek.livejournal.com]

And he really writes well, too. Yum.

[shiningmoon.livejournal.com]

refuse letters of reference

As a point of interest, employers in Oregon are not allowed to give a negative reference. They can only verify employment. (I don't honestly know if there is any restriction against a positive reference, but if there isn't, then a "yeah, they worked here" is pretty much going to mean "don't touch them with a 10 foot pole". :) )