Employers can legally lie to employees

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
http://www.mainstreet.com/article/career/employment/employers-can-legally-lie-workers-court-rules?page=1
Let the worker beware: in Texas it is now entirely legal to lie to your staff.

A recent decision from the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that at-will employees can't sue their employer for fraud over the loss of their jobs. In his opinion, Chief Justice Nathan Hecht held that "while an employee can sue an employer for fraud in some situations... [a] claim cannot be based on illusory promises of continued at-will employment."

In 2002 E.I. du Pont de Nemours announced plans to turn some of its operations into a separate subsidiary. Most of the affected employees were under a union agreement that gave them the right to transfer within DuPont if they preferred, a decision which would have cost the company an enormous amount of money to retrain the transfers and hire their replacements.

The employees were worried that if DuPont sold the new subsidiary it would hurt both their pay and retirement funds. To convince them to work in the subsidiary instead of transferring within the company, DuPont assured its employees that it had absolutely no plans to sell the spin-off. Based on this promise almost everyone moved to the subsidiary, which a few weeks later DuPont sold to Koch Industries. Koch cut both salaries and retirement packages. DuPont had, as it turns out, been negotiating this deal the entire time.

The Texas Supreme Court sees no problem with any of this.​

$hitty deal.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,529
743
113
Washington DC
Could this be actionable under False Claims Act? Like if the lost pension value means the employees need social assistance?
Actionable? Sure. Would the good guys win? Not likely. Just shooting from the hip, I'd say the connection between lost pension value and public assistance is too tenuous. Heck, the banks raped pension funds of hundreds of billions in value. Don't see them in the dock.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
42
48
Red Deer AB
The media made it quite clear they are under no obligation to tell the truth so this isn'yt a huge step, it's just confirming that it has been the standard for a very long time already.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
98,772
4,865
113
Moccasin Flats
Employees lies to employers constantly. How many times can the same grandmother die to get a couples days off?
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
13,177
947
113
Toronto, ON
Employees lies to employers constantly. How many times can the same grandmother die to get a couples days off?

You can have multiple grandmothers if the grandparents divorce (or even your parents or you). Everytime your grandpa re-maries, new grandma and new days off when she croaks. A new step dad or mom brings a new set of grandparents as does a new wife. To make proper use of the time, one should make sure the grandma croaks before divorcing and moving on.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
42
48
Red Deer AB
Actionable? Sure. Would the good guys win? Not likely. Just shooting from the hip, I'd say the connection between lost pension value and public assistance is too tenuous. Heck, the banks raped pension funds of hundreds of billions in value. Don't see them in the dock.
Under the low income clauses I can get a discount at the docket window, should I 'start the action'? Probably be all settled by the end of the year and all the Nations get back all the illegal usury collected by the banks. The amount is roughly $750T so that works out to everyone getting a nice sized piece of the pie. With the money remaining in circulation forever I doubt people would be spending it on war.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
I'm sure the source has given us all the facts.

You're welcome to try the unorthodox method of reading something before you post Walt. If that is too much for you, I suggest using a search engine. Posting irrelevant comments is your right though.

For the lazy folks, the actual court opinion lays out the facts, which is accurately summarized in the article I linked to...:

The factual background, which we take from the Fifth Circuit’s opinion, may be summarized
as follows.

In February 2002, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company announced plans to spin off part of its operations, including its Terathane Products Unit in La Porte, into a wholly owned subsidiary, DuPont Textiles and Interiors (“DTI”). Most of the Unit employees were covered by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), which gave them the right to transfer to other DuPont jobs rather than move to the new DTI subsidiary. DTI’s employees were to be covered by an identical CBA and would continue to receive the same pay and benefits they had at DuPont. But the Unit employees, who had worked for DuPont many years, were afraid DuPont would sell DTI, and that such a sale would adversely affect their compensation and retirement packages. DuPont wanted the
Unit employees to go to DTI to avoid significant training expenses — both for transferring employees in their new DuPont jobs and for their DTI replacements — and layoffs of people displaced by more senior transferring employees.

DuPont and the union agreed that the Unit employees would be given a deadline to decide whether to move to DTI, and the fate of those who decided to stay would be subject to further bargaining. DuPont allegedly assured the Unit employees, to persuade them to move to DTI, that DuPont would keep DTI, even though, unbeknownst to the employees, DuPont had already discussed selling DTI with a potential buyer, Koch Industries. Effective February 1, 2003, almost all of the Unit employees moved to DTI. A few weeks later, on April 14, DuPont announced it was negotiating a sale of DTI to Koch. The sale was finalized on May 1, 2004. Koch subsequently reduced the former DuPont employees’ compensation and retirement benefits.​