except for the EEO exceptions, the employer need have no reason to terminate the employment of someone in their hire
the employer can terminate the employee because of their looks as was recently confirmed by the court when the termination of employment by a dentist who fired his dental assistant because she was too good looking
Melissa Nelson Fired For Being Too Sexy - Business Insider
while i doubt you have the means to accomplish that, i welcome your attempts to do so
but insisting you know something we don't is never going to allow you to prevail in a debate
so, share with us the laws that are in place which will undermine our arguments
until you do so, recognize that your position has been soiled by every member who has posted in the opposition
At Will Employment
Tennessee is an At Will Employment state AND a Right to Work state. This means that absent some kind of labor agreement, an employer can fire anyone for any reason, good or bad, including "no reason", as long as the firing does not violate federal or state laws regarding discrimination AND that such a labor agreement to the contrary is unlikely because Unions have little power in the state.
Also, there's a reason why businesses aren't bankrupted continually in At Will Employment states anytime they fire someone...the laws are rather clear and an attempt to sue someone for wrongful termination when there's no evidence that can be shown of it violating a state law are likely to be thrown out in rather short order by judges.
Again, another article explaining what an At-Will state is:
What You Can't Fire Someone For | AllLaw.com
Here's another, from a lawyer from my state explaining it. Note, Tennessee is similar to Virginia in that it's At-Will and a Right To WorkUnder the employment-at-will doctrine, an employer can generally fire an employee for any reason or for no reason at all. However, there are some things that an employer can't fire an employee for. Employers cannot fire employees for reasons that would violate anti-discrimination laws. (For more information on employment discrimination laws read the article, "Employment Discrimination Laws You Should Be Aware Of".) An employer also cannot fire an employee for reasons that would violate public policy. For example, an employer cannot fire an employee because that employee turned the employer in for violating the law.
At-will Employment? Right-to-Work? What Does It All Mean? | Lynchburg BusinessFirst and foremost, one must understand that Virginia is both an at-will employment state and a right-to-work state. A proper understanding of these terms is essential for an understanding of the rights of both an employer and employee.
Right-to-work means an employer cannot make an agreement with a union that membership in the union is a condition of hiring or continued employment. Basically, membership in a union is voluntary for employees. In most workplaces, right-to-work is irrelevant because there is no union. In addition, an employer rarely violates this prohibition.
At-will employment means that, subject to some limitations, the employer is free to discharge individuals for good cause, bad cause or no cause at all, and the employee is equally free to quit, strike or otherwise cease working. This is the heart of employment law in Virginia, and the subject of most disputes. Usually, a case for wrongful discharge will arise from a violation of the at-will employment limitations.
The most important limitations on at-will employment are found in a patchwork of federal and state laws and regulations designed to prohibit discrimination. Discrimination is generally defined as taking an adverse action against an employee or potential employee based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or handicap status. There are also limitations on such adverse actions based on pregnancy, family medical leave, refusal to commit illegal acts and a host of other things. In addition to the above limitations, an employer also must abide by the limitations contained in the terms of any employment contract between the employer and employee.
As to the second, I agree to the point that the Free Press has the Duty to take anyone to task, especially our elected officials, and inform the public about what's happening in our country. However, there is a major difference between fulfilling ones duty in a professional manor, and calling the President what this person did in print, protected by, and one might even say hiding behind, the First Amendment. My point goes further, and went further in my original post, when it comes to the divisive hatred that is spewed by the media today, such as cable TV "news" such the likes of Fox and MSNBC. There is no civility. Without civility, how can we have a civil and thoughtful discussion? The lack of civility has lead many times to civil war. Yes, war. Both cold and hot. And right now, we have a cold war going on in this country. Continually crying that THEY (whichever THEY you wish to declare upon: Progressives, Conservatives, Liberals, Religious Right, etc.) are evil, can lead to uncontrollable hatred that people will eventually act upon, and that point the cold war becomes hot. There are many instances of this happening already. Bombings or burning of abortion clinics. Defacing religious symbols, like burning the Koran. Or burning the flag. Or taking an otherwise normal trial of a potential homicide and making into the "trial of the century" regarding race, when there is absolutely no evidence that race played a part.
With great power (the First Amendment) comes great responsibility. Not just the responsibility to interview, investigate and inform, but to do so in a professional and civil manner.
That is lacking in our media today. All forms of media, including boards like this one. And it needs to change.
The area where we may disagree is that I do not think that the presidency should be hands off, regardless of which party is in office. Just the opposite, there needs to be more scrutiny as the power one holds increases.