The glass ceiling is now made of concrete.

[Loren Pechtel]

It is confusing to try to sort out the details of the case. In the original case, Mackenzie alleged that Miller Brewing fired him for sexual harassment. Miller Brewing alleged that they fired him for several deficiencies in his job performance, not due to harassment--although they pointed out that he had been previously accused of harassment.

The jury said there was no harassment and awarded Mackenzie $26M. Appeals overturned the award and the Supreme court upheld the appeals. No ruling by either upper court on harassment. From what I can make out, Miller Brewing lied to Mackenzie about job restructuring, leaving him in a position where he did not fulfill his job duties--but didn't know that he wasn't. That's as much as I can make out. Neither upper court addressed sexual harassment claims. We have only Mackenzie's claim that he was fired for harassment which wasn't harassment to support that. Miller Brewing says that's not why he was fired and the other courts didn't address whether or not the whole stupid Seinfeld thing was harassment.

But since no actual valid reason for firing him was established I have a very hard time with the notion that it wasn't the alleged harassment. The whole thing sounds like someone trying to come up with a way out of the big judgment. Note that no jury ever got to decide if Miller was telling the truth.

Miller always alleged it was because he performed his job duties poorly and made mistakes. The original court said that MacKenzie was fired for harassment which was not harassment; hence the award.

The appellate court reversed: said not the reason he was fired; they sided with Miller who had deceived Mackenzie about what his job duties actually were under the restructuring. Miller lied to Mackenzie but the court found that Miller was under no obligation to be honest with Mackenzie. That's the part I find mind boggling. The court upheld Miller's right to fire Mackenzie for criteria he wasn't aware existed. I guess this is what you get under right to work. Anyone can be fired for any reason or no reason.

The jury didn't believe Miller--thus the most reasonable conclusion is that he was fired for harassment that didn't happen.

 

[Toni]

Miller always alleged it was because he performed his job duties poorly and made mistakes. The original court said that MacKenzie was fired for harassment which was not harassment; hence the award.

The appellate court reversed: said not the reason he was fired; they sided with Miller who had deceived Mackenzie about what his job duties actually were under the restructuring. Miller lied to Mackenzie but the court found that Miller was under no obligation to be honest with Mackenzie. That's the part I find mind boggling. The court upheld Miller's right to fire Mackenzie for criteria he wasn't aware existed. I guess this is what you get under right to work. Anyone can be fired for any reason or no reason.

The jury didn't believe Miller--thus the most reasonable conclusion is that he was fired for harassment that didn't happen.

But the other courts DID believe Miller.

Why do you find the first jury more believable?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Miller always alleged it was because he performed his job duties poorly and made mistakes. The original court said that MacKenzie was fired for harassment which was not harassment; hence the award.

The appellate court reversed: said not the reason he was fired; they sided with Miller who had deceived Mackenzie about what his job duties actually were under the restructuring. Miller lied to Mackenzie but the court found that Miller was under no obligation to be honest with Mackenzie. That's the part I find mind boggling. The court upheld Miller's right to fire Mackenzie for criteria he wasn't aware existed. I guess this is what you get under right to work. Anyone can be fired for any reason or no reason.

The jury didn't believe Miller--thus the most reasonable conclusion is that he was fired for harassment that didn't happen.

But the other courts DID believe Miller.

Why do you find the first jury more believable?

The court doesn't get to make that decision. The court decided it didn't matter why he was fired, they had the right to do so.