zlacker

It's weird that you mention courts and then in the next sentence say this:

>the burden of proof in my mind is on the company

Because that is not how the courts operate. It is up to the person making the accusation (which in this case is the employee accusing Amazon of an unjust firing) to provide proof.

If you want to start dismissing all "he said/she said" arguments, then we might as well shut down this entire thread. We are never going to get any further than "he said/she said" unless someone in this thread has insider knowledge of this situation and is willing to break privacy agreements.

>>tidepo+(OP)
Exactly. When taken to court the plaintiff would have an easy time acquiring records of quarantine counts. In that case the "burden of proof" could somewhat be seen as being on Amazon, but really it's the court allowing the accusor to get such proof. (that is, some guy doesn't have to go around and ask everyone he worked with if they were quarantined, Amazon has to give him the information).

>>tidepo+(OP)
> It is up to the person making the accusation (which in this case is the employee accusing Amazon of an unjust firing) to provide proof.

It's not necessarily either. It may very well simply be the preponderance of the evidence. Nevertheless, such a suit will be undertaken with the benefit of the discovery process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28law%29

>>fennec+ol
Preponderance of evidence is the bar that must be met. But the plaintiff must provide the evidence to the courts. The discovery process makes some of the defendant's records available to the plaintiff, in case there is relevant evidence.

But if the plaintiff produces no evidence, Amazon does not need to make a defense. Thus OP is correct.

>>fennec+ol
Preponderance of the evidence is only used in arbitration, if he's suing then this is litigation. In reality, if he has a contract requiring arbitration or mediation instead of litigation then he has absolutely no power and no chance of winning because arbitratators/mediators are always hired by the company.

Even discounting all of that, the judge/jury/arbitrator/litigator would have to agree that sending him into quarantine and not others constitutes retaliation. To be completely honest, this kind of job is a huge joke. If you take too many bathroom breaks you won't hit your quota and they cN fire you for that.

The only way to win isn't to prove he was treated inconsistently, that can be ignored so long as the reason they stated for letting him go is true.

>>tidepo+(OP)
Isn't the firing an accusation in and of itself and as such the burden of proof is on the company?

>>Thlom+qv
Absolutely; it's Amazon that are making the accusations here.

>>tikima+su
That's not what "mediation" is. Mediation is never binding.

>>tikima+su
A quick google search says preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof for most civil cases, so your assertion that it is only used in arbitration seems to be incorrect.

And arbitrators are always required to be agreed on by both parties.

>>Thlom+qv
Firing someone isn't asking a court to do something. Companies can fire you for all sorts of silly reasons and most of them aren't illegal. The employee is accusing the company of firing them for one of the illegal reasons.

>>gitgud+8n
> But the plaintiff must provide the evidence to the courts

Sure, but any evidence which makes an accusation more likely than in the absence of that evidence suffices to meet preponderance of the evidence in the absence of any contrary evidence. The fact of the labor organizing, the fact of the firing, and their temporal relationship are, together, evidence for retaliation.

>>tidepo+(OP)
> Because that is not how the courts operate. It is up to the person making the accusation (which in this case is the employee accusing Amazon of an unjust firing) to provide proof.

While sort of true, using the word "proof" there is too strong. In a civil context, the burden of proof for a retaliatory firing is a preponderance of the evidence. That means, the plaintiff has to demonstrate with evidence to the court (in a bench trial) or the jury that it is more-likely-than-not (e.g. 51%) that the firing was retaliatory.

If you start with the evidence that Amazon learned that the worker was organizing a strike, and then very shortly thereafter fired the worker that evidence _alone_ (which seems to be undisputed) probably gets you near that burden.

Amazon, then, might present the lack of quarantine defense as an alternative scenario, but then some of the burden will be on Amazon to effectively make this case.

>>dragon+3T
Yes, exactly. If the only evidence presented demonstrates that the plaintiff was organizing, that Amazon learned that he was organizing, and after that point Amazon fired the plaintiff they would very likely have met a preponderance of evidence burden. It sounds like none of those facts are even in dispute.

So, Amazon will very likely need to make the case (and Amazon will need to present the evidence to support it), that he was actually fired for violating the company mandated quarantine.

The actual evidentiary fight will probably be over whether that quarantine was a bona fide quarantine, or a pretextual one. But who has the burden to present that evidence will very much depend on who feels like they're losing the case. Probably both of them will need to present evidence to support their position.

>>tikima+su
> Preponderance of the evidence is only used in arbitration, if he's suing then this is litigation

This sentence is simply false.

>>dragon+3T
Fallacious. A headache is evidence of a brain tumor, but there's not a 51% chance you have a brain tumor. You've satisfied some necessary conditions for retaliatory action, but haven't converted that into a probability.

You have a reasonable indication, but no preponderance of evidence. You probably have enough for discovery.