I was fired for refusing to work with Typhoid, do I have any recourse?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I was fired for not showing up to work as ordered. This is after explaining to my boss over the phone that I have Typhoid, and working with food would endanger the guests to the restaurant/arcade at which I work.



Do I have any recourse at all in this situation? As it stands, I should've just went to work anyway. This is a followup to this question: May I legally work in a restaurant with typhoid if the employer knows?










share|improve this question



















  • 12




    I notice that this question is now in HNQ. Before anyone becomes emotionally invested in it, please note that the asker has previously claimed to be a surgeon and a retired cellular biologist.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday














up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I was fired for not showing up to work as ordered. This is after explaining to my boss over the phone that I have Typhoid, and working with food would endanger the guests to the restaurant/arcade at which I work.



Do I have any recourse at all in this situation? As it stands, I should've just went to work anyway. This is a followup to this question: May I legally work in a restaurant with typhoid if the employer knows?










share|improve this question



















  • 12




    I notice that this question is now in HNQ. Before anyone becomes emotionally invested in it, please note that the asker has previously claimed to be a surgeon and a retired cellular biologist.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday












up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











I was fired for not showing up to work as ordered. This is after explaining to my boss over the phone that I have Typhoid, and working with food would endanger the guests to the restaurant/arcade at which I work.



Do I have any recourse at all in this situation? As it stands, I should've just went to work anyway. This is a followup to this question: May I legally work in a restaurant with typhoid if the employer knows?










share|improve this question















I was fired for not showing up to work as ordered. This is after explaining to my boss over the phone that I have Typhoid, and working with food would endanger the guests to the restaurant/arcade at which I work.



Do I have any recourse at all in this situation? As it stands, I should've just went to work anyway. This is a followup to this question: May I legally work in a restaurant with typhoid if the employer knows?







united-states employment texas






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









Basil Bourque

1335




1335










asked 2 days ago









anonymous

344129




344129







  • 12




    I notice that this question is now in HNQ. Before anyone becomes emotionally invested in it, please note that the asker has previously claimed to be a surgeon and a retired cellular biologist.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday












  • 12




    I notice that this question is now in HNQ. Before anyone becomes emotionally invested in it, please note that the asker has previously claimed to be a surgeon and a retired cellular biologist.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday







12




12




I notice that this question is now in HNQ. Before anyone becomes emotionally invested in it, please note that the asker has previously claimed to be a surgeon and a retired cellular biologist.
– David Richerby
yesterday




I notice that this question is now in HNQ. Before anyone becomes emotionally invested in it, please note that the asker has previously claimed to be a surgeon and a retired cellular biologist.
– David Richerby
yesterday










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
13
down vote













Read the answers to your previous question. You should not have gone to work anyway. That would have been stupid and irresponsible. You would have endangered the public and would have been liable for being sued and being financially destroyed for the rest of your life.



You need to get treatment; find a community clinic or go to the local ER. Failure to do so will result in you possibly being criminally liable for infecting others in addition to being civilly liable.



The hospital or clinic will inform the city/county health department and they inspect the business that fired you; and if you were at the restaurant at all, inform the public as to the dangers.



After you have started treatment and are not contagious, Google for free legal aid in your area and talk to a lawyer. They will explain if you have a case against the business - this can depend on jurisdiction - to at least get unemployment.






share|improve this answer


















  • 9




    It's OK. The asker was working as a surgeon in May this year so they know where to go to get medical treatment.
    – David Richerby
    2 days ago






  • 4




    @DavidRicherby Do you really believe everything you read on the internet? Especially from posters who go by "anonymous" and have a history of asking sketchy questions?
    – BlueDogRanch
    2 days ago






  • 11




    Of course I don't believe a word of it: the surgeon part or the fired fast-food worker part.
    – David Richerby
    2 days ago






  • 10




    @DavidRicherby Another post by the same person asks a hypothetical question as research for a novel, which would explain a lot. It'd be nice if they were honest about this
    – Graham
    yesterday






  • 5




    @Graham Agreed -- there's nothing wrong with hypothetical questions, and I'm not sure they even need to be labelled as such. But I think this pair of questions crosses the line into trolling by setting up a fake, emotionalized situation.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday

















up vote
5
down vote













Texas is an "at will" employment state; the question is whether there is an exception in case the employer tells you to do something illegal. These guys (trying to drum up business) indicate why it may not be legal to fire you for obeying the law, based on Sabine Pilot Services, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, where the Texas Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot force an employee to choose between violating the law and keeping his job. You could then file a wrongful discharge suit, seeking lost and future wages and benefits, court costs, and punitive damages. The outcome you see is not a foregone conclusion. This blog reports a case that depended on Sabine Pilot, namely Peine v. HIT Services L.P., 479 S.W.3d 445. The complication here is that the employee breached a confidentiality agreement, and he remained fired because although he may have been told to break the law, that wasn't the only reason he was fired. From the Sabine ruling:




That narrow exception covers only the discharge of an employee for the
sole reason that the employee refused to perform and illegal act. We
further hold that in the trial of such a case it is the plaintiff's
burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his discharge
was for no reason other than his refusal to perform an illegal act.




Your attorney will tell you what your prospects are for suing the guy: given the alleged action, reinstatement would not be unexpected.






share|improve this answer




















  • At a minimum, the termination of employment would be without good cause so one would be entitled to unemployment benefits. The relevant statute may also have a non-retaliation clause which makes firing someone for obeying the statute a wrongful termination.
    – ohwilleke
    8 hours ago

















up vote
1
down vote













This is one of the rare circumstances in which a non-union, non-government employee might even have a right to be reinstated in his job, in addition to potentially having a monetary remedy for wrongful termination.



There is a legal duty to reinstate a food employee once that employee overcomes the illness pursuant to Texas Food Establishment Rules §228.37. Failure to do so could result in the revocation of the employer's license to operate his business, or in a violation that could count towards doing so together with other violations, and would also be a matter of public record.



The employee could also filed a complaint under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act:




If the evidence supports an employee’s claim of retaliation, OSHA will
issue an order requiring the employer to, as appropriate, put the
employee back to work, pay lost wages, restore benefits, and other
possible relief. The exact requirements will depend on the facts of
the case. If the evidence does not support the employee’s claim, OSHA
will dismiss the complaint.



After OSHA issues a decision, the employer and/or the employee may
request a full hearing before an administrative law judge of the
Department of Labor. The administrative law judge’s decision may be
appealed to the Labor Department’s Administrative Review Board.




The employee may also file a complaint in federal court if the U.S. Department of Labor does not issue a final decision within certain time limits. Details on this provision can be found in OSHA’s regulations, at 29 CFR 1987.114.



@user6726 Also notes that under the common law of Texas, terminating someone solely for refusing to violate the law gives rise to an action for wrongful termination, citing Sabine Pilot Services, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985) and a subsequent case.



A termination of employment for this reason would also constitute a termination that is not for good cause, so the employee would be entitled to unemployment benefits.






share|improve this answer






















    Your Answer







    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "617"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32344%2fi-was-fired-for-refusing-to-work-with-typhoid-do-i-have-any-recourse%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    13
    down vote













    Read the answers to your previous question. You should not have gone to work anyway. That would have been stupid and irresponsible. You would have endangered the public and would have been liable for being sued and being financially destroyed for the rest of your life.



    You need to get treatment; find a community clinic or go to the local ER. Failure to do so will result in you possibly being criminally liable for infecting others in addition to being civilly liable.



    The hospital or clinic will inform the city/county health department and they inspect the business that fired you; and if you were at the restaurant at all, inform the public as to the dangers.



    After you have started treatment and are not contagious, Google for free legal aid in your area and talk to a lawyer. They will explain if you have a case against the business - this can depend on jurisdiction - to at least get unemployment.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 9




      It's OK. The asker was working as a surgeon in May this year so they know where to go to get medical treatment.
      – David Richerby
      2 days ago






    • 4




      @DavidRicherby Do you really believe everything you read on the internet? Especially from posters who go by "anonymous" and have a history of asking sketchy questions?
      – BlueDogRanch
      2 days ago






    • 11




      Of course I don't believe a word of it: the surgeon part or the fired fast-food worker part.
      – David Richerby
      2 days ago






    • 10




      @DavidRicherby Another post by the same person asks a hypothetical question as research for a novel, which would explain a lot. It'd be nice if they were honest about this
      – Graham
      yesterday






    • 5




      @Graham Agreed -- there's nothing wrong with hypothetical questions, and I'm not sure they even need to be labelled as such. But I think this pair of questions crosses the line into trolling by setting up a fake, emotionalized situation.
      – David Richerby
      yesterday














    up vote
    13
    down vote













    Read the answers to your previous question. You should not have gone to work anyway. That would have been stupid and irresponsible. You would have endangered the public and would have been liable for being sued and being financially destroyed for the rest of your life.



    You need to get treatment; find a community clinic or go to the local ER. Failure to do so will result in you possibly being criminally liable for infecting others in addition to being civilly liable.



    The hospital or clinic will inform the city/county health department and they inspect the business that fired you; and if you were at the restaurant at all, inform the public as to the dangers.



    After you have started treatment and are not contagious, Google for free legal aid in your area and talk to a lawyer. They will explain if you have a case against the business - this can depend on jurisdiction - to at least get unemployment.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 9




      It's OK. The asker was working as a surgeon in May this year so they know where to go to get medical treatment.
      – David Richerby
      2 days ago






    • 4




      @DavidRicherby Do you really believe everything you read on the internet? Especially from posters who go by "anonymous" and have a history of asking sketchy questions?
      – BlueDogRanch
      2 days ago






    • 11




      Of course I don't believe a word of it: the surgeon part or the fired fast-food worker part.
      – David Richerby
      2 days ago






    • 10




      @DavidRicherby Another post by the same person asks a hypothetical question as research for a novel, which would explain a lot. It'd be nice if they were honest about this
      – Graham
      yesterday






    • 5




      @Graham Agreed -- there's nothing wrong with hypothetical questions, and I'm not sure they even need to be labelled as such. But I think this pair of questions crosses the line into trolling by setting up a fake, emotionalized situation.
      – David Richerby
      yesterday












    up vote
    13
    down vote










    up vote
    13
    down vote









    Read the answers to your previous question. You should not have gone to work anyway. That would have been stupid and irresponsible. You would have endangered the public and would have been liable for being sued and being financially destroyed for the rest of your life.



    You need to get treatment; find a community clinic or go to the local ER. Failure to do so will result in you possibly being criminally liable for infecting others in addition to being civilly liable.



    The hospital or clinic will inform the city/county health department and they inspect the business that fired you; and if you were at the restaurant at all, inform the public as to the dangers.



    After you have started treatment and are not contagious, Google for free legal aid in your area and talk to a lawyer. They will explain if you have a case against the business - this can depend on jurisdiction - to at least get unemployment.






    share|improve this answer














    Read the answers to your previous question. You should not have gone to work anyway. That would have been stupid and irresponsible. You would have endangered the public and would have been liable for being sued and being financially destroyed for the rest of your life.



    You need to get treatment; find a community clinic or go to the local ER. Failure to do so will result in you possibly being criminally liable for infecting others in addition to being civilly liable.



    The hospital or clinic will inform the city/county health department and they inspect the business that fired you; and if you were at the restaurant at all, inform the public as to the dangers.



    After you have started treatment and are not contagious, Google for free legal aid in your area and talk to a lawyer. They will explain if you have a case against the business - this can depend on jurisdiction - to at least get unemployment.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago

























    answered 2 days ago









    BlueDogRanch

    7,73021233




    7,73021233







    • 9




      It's OK. The asker was working as a surgeon in May this year so they know where to go to get medical treatment.
      – David Richerby
      2 days ago






    • 4




      @DavidRicherby Do you really believe everything you read on the internet? Especially from posters who go by "anonymous" and have a history of asking sketchy questions?
      – BlueDogRanch
      2 days ago






    • 11




      Of course I don't believe a word of it: the surgeon part or the fired fast-food worker part.
      – David Richerby
      2 days ago






    • 10




      @DavidRicherby Another post by the same person asks a hypothetical question as research for a novel, which would explain a lot. It'd be nice if they were honest about this
      – Graham
      yesterday






    • 5




      @Graham Agreed -- there's nothing wrong with hypothetical questions, and I'm not sure they even need to be labelled as such. But I think this pair of questions crosses the line into trolling by setting up a fake, emotionalized situation.
      – David Richerby
      yesterday












    • 9




      It's OK. The asker was working as a surgeon in May this year so they know where to go to get medical treatment.
      – David Richerby
      2 days ago






    • 4




      @DavidRicherby Do you really believe everything you read on the internet? Especially from posters who go by "anonymous" and have a history of asking sketchy questions?
      – BlueDogRanch
      2 days ago






    • 11




      Of course I don't believe a word of it: the surgeon part or the fired fast-food worker part.
      – David Richerby
      2 days ago






    • 10




      @DavidRicherby Another post by the same person asks a hypothetical question as research for a novel, which would explain a lot. It'd be nice if they were honest about this
      – Graham
      yesterday






    • 5




      @Graham Agreed -- there's nothing wrong with hypothetical questions, and I'm not sure they even need to be labelled as such. But I think this pair of questions crosses the line into trolling by setting up a fake, emotionalized situation.
      – David Richerby
      yesterday







    9




    9




    It's OK. The asker was working as a surgeon in May this year so they know where to go to get medical treatment.
    – David Richerby
    2 days ago




    It's OK. The asker was working as a surgeon in May this year so they know where to go to get medical treatment.
    – David Richerby
    2 days ago




    4




    4




    @DavidRicherby Do you really believe everything you read on the internet? Especially from posters who go by "anonymous" and have a history of asking sketchy questions?
    – BlueDogRanch
    2 days ago




    @DavidRicherby Do you really believe everything you read on the internet? Especially from posters who go by "anonymous" and have a history of asking sketchy questions?
    – BlueDogRanch
    2 days ago




    11




    11




    Of course I don't believe a word of it: the surgeon part or the fired fast-food worker part.
    – David Richerby
    2 days ago




    Of course I don't believe a word of it: the surgeon part or the fired fast-food worker part.
    – David Richerby
    2 days ago




    10




    10




    @DavidRicherby Another post by the same person asks a hypothetical question as research for a novel, which would explain a lot. It'd be nice if they were honest about this
    – Graham
    yesterday




    @DavidRicherby Another post by the same person asks a hypothetical question as research for a novel, which would explain a lot. It'd be nice if they were honest about this
    – Graham
    yesterday




    5




    5




    @Graham Agreed -- there's nothing wrong with hypothetical questions, and I'm not sure they even need to be labelled as such. But I think this pair of questions crosses the line into trolling by setting up a fake, emotionalized situation.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday




    @Graham Agreed -- there's nothing wrong with hypothetical questions, and I'm not sure they even need to be labelled as such. But I think this pair of questions crosses the line into trolling by setting up a fake, emotionalized situation.
    – David Richerby
    yesterday










    up vote
    5
    down vote













    Texas is an "at will" employment state; the question is whether there is an exception in case the employer tells you to do something illegal. These guys (trying to drum up business) indicate why it may not be legal to fire you for obeying the law, based on Sabine Pilot Services, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, where the Texas Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot force an employee to choose between violating the law and keeping his job. You could then file a wrongful discharge suit, seeking lost and future wages and benefits, court costs, and punitive damages. The outcome you see is not a foregone conclusion. This blog reports a case that depended on Sabine Pilot, namely Peine v. HIT Services L.P., 479 S.W.3d 445. The complication here is that the employee breached a confidentiality agreement, and he remained fired because although he may have been told to break the law, that wasn't the only reason he was fired. From the Sabine ruling:




    That narrow exception covers only the discharge of an employee for the
    sole reason that the employee refused to perform and illegal act. We
    further hold that in the trial of such a case it is the plaintiff's
    burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his discharge
    was for no reason other than his refusal to perform an illegal act.




    Your attorney will tell you what your prospects are for suing the guy: given the alleged action, reinstatement would not be unexpected.






    share|improve this answer




















    • At a minimum, the termination of employment would be without good cause so one would be entitled to unemployment benefits. The relevant statute may also have a non-retaliation clause which makes firing someone for obeying the statute a wrongful termination.
      – ohwilleke
      8 hours ago














    up vote
    5
    down vote













    Texas is an "at will" employment state; the question is whether there is an exception in case the employer tells you to do something illegal. These guys (trying to drum up business) indicate why it may not be legal to fire you for obeying the law, based on Sabine Pilot Services, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, where the Texas Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot force an employee to choose between violating the law and keeping his job. You could then file a wrongful discharge suit, seeking lost and future wages and benefits, court costs, and punitive damages. The outcome you see is not a foregone conclusion. This blog reports a case that depended on Sabine Pilot, namely Peine v. HIT Services L.P., 479 S.W.3d 445. The complication here is that the employee breached a confidentiality agreement, and he remained fired because although he may have been told to break the law, that wasn't the only reason he was fired. From the Sabine ruling:




    That narrow exception covers only the discharge of an employee for the
    sole reason that the employee refused to perform and illegal act. We
    further hold that in the trial of such a case it is the plaintiff's
    burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his discharge
    was for no reason other than his refusal to perform an illegal act.




    Your attorney will tell you what your prospects are for suing the guy: given the alleged action, reinstatement would not be unexpected.






    share|improve this answer




















    • At a minimum, the termination of employment would be without good cause so one would be entitled to unemployment benefits. The relevant statute may also have a non-retaliation clause which makes firing someone for obeying the statute a wrongful termination.
      – ohwilleke
      8 hours ago












    up vote
    5
    down vote










    up vote
    5
    down vote









    Texas is an "at will" employment state; the question is whether there is an exception in case the employer tells you to do something illegal. These guys (trying to drum up business) indicate why it may not be legal to fire you for obeying the law, based on Sabine Pilot Services, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, where the Texas Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot force an employee to choose between violating the law and keeping his job. You could then file a wrongful discharge suit, seeking lost and future wages and benefits, court costs, and punitive damages. The outcome you see is not a foregone conclusion. This blog reports a case that depended on Sabine Pilot, namely Peine v. HIT Services L.P., 479 S.W.3d 445. The complication here is that the employee breached a confidentiality agreement, and he remained fired because although he may have been told to break the law, that wasn't the only reason he was fired. From the Sabine ruling:




    That narrow exception covers only the discharge of an employee for the
    sole reason that the employee refused to perform and illegal act. We
    further hold that in the trial of such a case it is the plaintiff's
    burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his discharge
    was for no reason other than his refusal to perform an illegal act.




    Your attorney will tell you what your prospects are for suing the guy: given the alleged action, reinstatement would not be unexpected.






    share|improve this answer












    Texas is an "at will" employment state; the question is whether there is an exception in case the employer tells you to do something illegal. These guys (trying to drum up business) indicate why it may not be legal to fire you for obeying the law, based on Sabine Pilot Services, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, where the Texas Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot force an employee to choose between violating the law and keeping his job. You could then file a wrongful discharge suit, seeking lost and future wages and benefits, court costs, and punitive damages. The outcome you see is not a foregone conclusion. This blog reports a case that depended on Sabine Pilot, namely Peine v. HIT Services L.P., 479 S.W.3d 445. The complication here is that the employee breached a confidentiality agreement, and he remained fired because although he may have been told to break the law, that wasn't the only reason he was fired. From the Sabine ruling:




    That narrow exception covers only the discharge of an employee for the
    sole reason that the employee refused to perform and illegal act. We
    further hold that in the trial of such a case it is the plaintiff's
    burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his discharge
    was for no reason other than his refusal to perform an illegal act.




    Your attorney will tell you what your prospects are for suing the guy: given the alleged action, reinstatement would not be unexpected.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    user6726

    50.7k24386




    50.7k24386











    • At a minimum, the termination of employment would be without good cause so one would be entitled to unemployment benefits. The relevant statute may also have a non-retaliation clause which makes firing someone for obeying the statute a wrongful termination.
      – ohwilleke
      8 hours ago
















    • At a minimum, the termination of employment would be without good cause so one would be entitled to unemployment benefits. The relevant statute may also have a non-retaliation clause which makes firing someone for obeying the statute a wrongful termination.
      – ohwilleke
      8 hours ago















    At a minimum, the termination of employment would be without good cause so one would be entitled to unemployment benefits. The relevant statute may also have a non-retaliation clause which makes firing someone for obeying the statute a wrongful termination.
    – ohwilleke
    8 hours ago




    At a minimum, the termination of employment would be without good cause so one would be entitled to unemployment benefits. The relevant statute may also have a non-retaliation clause which makes firing someone for obeying the statute a wrongful termination.
    – ohwilleke
    8 hours ago










    up vote
    1
    down vote













    This is one of the rare circumstances in which a non-union, non-government employee might even have a right to be reinstated in his job, in addition to potentially having a monetary remedy for wrongful termination.



    There is a legal duty to reinstate a food employee once that employee overcomes the illness pursuant to Texas Food Establishment Rules §228.37. Failure to do so could result in the revocation of the employer's license to operate his business, or in a violation that could count towards doing so together with other violations, and would also be a matter of public record.



    The employee could also filed a complaint under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act:




    If the evidence supports an employee’s claim of retaliation, OSHA will
    issue an order requiring the employer to, as appropriate, put the
    employee back to work, pay lost wages, restore benefits, and other
    possible relief. The exact requirements will depend on the facts of
    the case. If the evidence does not support the employee’s claim, OSHA
    will dismiss the complaint.



    After OSHA issues a decision, the employer and/or the employee may
    request a full hearing before an administrative law judge of the
    Department of Labor. The administrative law judge’s decision may be
    appealed to the Labor Department’s Administrative Review Board.




    The employee may also file a complaint in federal court if the U.S. Department of Labor does not issue a final decision within certain time limits. Details on this provision can be found in OSHA’s regulations, at 29 CFR 1987.114.



    @user6726 Also notes that under the common law of Texas, terminating someone solely for refusing to violate the law gives rise to an action for wrongful termination, citing Sabine Pilot Services, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985) and a subsequent case.



    A termination of employment for this reason would also constitute a termination that is not for good cause, so the employee would be entitled to unemployment benefits.






    share|improve this answer


























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      This is one of the rare circumstances in which a non-union, non-government employee might even have a right to be reinstated in his job, in addition to potentially having a monetary remedy for wrongful termination.



      There is a legal duty to reinstate a food employee once that employee overcomes the illness pursuant to Texas Food Establishment Rules §228.37. Failure to do so could result in the revocation of the employer's license to operate his business, or in a violation that could count towards doing so together with other violations, and would also be a matter of public record.



      The employee could also filed a complaint under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act:




      If the evidence supports an employee’s claim of retaliation, OSHA will
      issue an order requiring the employer to, as appropriate, put the
      employee back to work, pay lost wages, restore benefits, and other
      possible relief. The exact requirements will depend on the facts of
      the case. If the evidence does not support the employee’s claim, OSHA
      will dismiss the complaint.



      After OSHA issues a decision, the employer and/or the employee may
      request a full hearing before an administrative law judge of the
      Department of Labor. The administrative law judge’s decision may be
      appealed to the Labor Department’s Administrative Review Board.




      The employee may also file a complaint in federal court if the U.S. Department of Labor does not issue a final decision within certain time limits. Details on this provision can be found in OSHA’s regulations, at 29 CFR 1987.114.



      @user6726 Also notes that under the common law of Texas, terminating someone solely for refusing to violate the law gives rise to an action for wrongful termination, citing Sabine Pilot Services, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985) and a subsequent case.



      A termination of employment for this reason would also constitute a termination that is not for good cause, so the employee would be entitled to unemployment benefits.






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        This is one of the rare circumstances in which a non-union, non-government employee might even have a right to be reinstated in his job, in addition to potentially having a monetary remedy for wrongful termination.



        There is a legal duty to reinstate a food employee once that employee overcomes the illness pursuant to Texas Food Establishment Rules §228.37. Failure to do so could result in the revocation of the employer's license to operate his business, or in a violation that could count towards doing so together with other violations, and would also be a matter of public record.



        The employee could also filed a complaint under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act:




        If the evidence supports an employee’s claim of retaliation, OSHA will
        issue an order requiring the employer to, as appropriate, put the
        employee back to work, pay lost wages, restore benefits, and other
        possible relief. The exact requirements will depend on the facts of
        the case. If the evidence does not support the employee’s claim, OSHA
        will dismiss the complaint.



        After OSHA issues a decision, the employer and/or the employee may
        request a full hearing before an administrative law judge of the
        Department of Labor. The administrative law judge’s decision may be
        appealed to the Labor Department’s Administrative Review Board.




        The employee may also file a complaint in federal court if the U.S. Department of Labor does not issue a final decision within certain time limits. Details on this provision can be found in OSHA’s regulations, at 29 CFR 1987.114.



        @user6726 Also notes that under the common law of Texas, terminating someone solely for refusing to violate the law gives rise to an action for wrongful termination, citing Sabine Pilot Services, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985) and a subsequent case.



        A termination of employment for this reason would also constitute a termination that is not for good cause, so the employee would be entitled to unemployment benefits.






        share|improve this answer














        This is one of the rare circumstances in which a non-union, non-government employee might even have a right to be reinstated in his job, in addition to potentially having a monetary remedy for wrongful termination.



        There is a legal duty to reinstate a food employee once that employee overcomes the illness pursuant to Texas Food Establishment Rules §228.37. Failure to do so could result in the revocation of the employer's license to operate his business, or in a violation that could count towards doing so together with other violations, and would also be a matter of public record.



        The employee could also filed a complaint under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act:




        If the evidence supports an employee’s claim of retaliation, OSHA will
        issue an order requiring the employer to, as appropriate, put the
        employee back to work, pay lost wages, restore benefits, and other
        possible relief. The exact requirements will depend on the facts of
        the case. If the evidence does not support the employee’s claim, OSHA
        will dismiss the complaint.



        After OSHA issues a decision, the employer and/or the employee may
        request a full hearing before an administrative law judge of the
        Department of Labor. The administrative law judge’s decision may be
        appealed to the Labor Department’s Administrative Review Board.




        The employee may also file a complaint in federal court if the U.S. Department of Labor does not issue a final decision within certain time limits. Details on this provision can be found in OSHA’s regulations, at 29 CFR 1987.114.



        @user6726 Also notes that under the common law of Texas, terminating someone solely for refusing to violate the law gives rise to an action for wrongful termination, citing Sabine Pilot Services, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985) and a subsequent case.



        A termination of employment for this reason would also constitute a termination that is not for good cause, so the employee would be entitled to unemployment benefits.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 7 hours ago

























        answered 8 hours ago









        ohwilleke

        44.3k251112




        44.3k251112



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32344%2fi-was-fired-for-refusing-to-work-with-typhoid-do-i-have-any-recourse%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Bahrain

            Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay