Forum consensus, employee who refuses to close bathroom door .

[Scopedog]

I recommend checking the local court websites to see if this person has filed a lot of lawsuits. Whether they have or not, a lawyer needs to be consulted before firing. This person is going to sue and probably represent themselves, costing them nothing (look up vexatious litigant), and force a settlement.

Edited to add: In the period before you realize that you're dealing with a vexatious litigant, bear in mind that every reaction people are having, including most of the responses in this thread, are exactly the response the vexatious litigant wants and expects. There are lunatic vexatious litigants that sue the moon and Harry Potter but there are also extremely intelligent ones that are as much experts on Civil Code or whatever as any lawyer, and sometimes they're better at it than a lawyer because it's all they do all day and they take it much more personally than a paid lawyer. The intelligent ones know how people's minds work and they use it against them to make the eventual litigation more complicated and expensive for the victim. For example, they know that most people don't really understand the court system, and if the victim gets an accusation against them that they think they can easily defend against, they don't realize they'll never get to defend themselves. The vexatious litigant, representing themselves, incurring minimal costs, will use every legal avenue to drag out the initial stages of the litigation beyond the ability of the victim to afford until they have no choice but to settle.

 

[Meadmaker]

I recommend checking the local court websites to see if this person has filed a lot of lawsuits. Whether they have or not, a lawyer needs to be consulted before firing. This person is going to sue and probably represent themselves, costing them nothing (look up vexatious litigant), and force a settlement.

God Bless America.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Could you just add one of those things that forces the door to close itself? Those slidey cylinder thingies. Is the technical term, I believe.

 

[Scopedog]

God Bless America.

Not sure where you're from, but the legal concept of a vexatious litigant was established in England after people had been abusing the court system with these types of lawsuits. Wikipedia says 1896.

 

[xjx388]

If you have a history of warning this person about their behavior and they have failed to rectify it, then I don’t see a legal issue -a lawyer can chime in.

Now is maybe the time to write a specific company policy about closing the damn door when one pisses. Probably not in the company handbook... and we wonder about how those weird “caution, coffee is hot” labels come about.

 

[rjh01]

There's a pretty big difference between one person being an ******* and a bunch of people organizing themselves to do so. I mean, that's clear to you, right?

I see nothing wrong with making reasonable comments on anything I see when I am standing where I am allowed to stand.

I recommend checking the local court websites to see if this person has filed a lot of lawsuits. Whether they have or not, a lawyer needs to be consulted before firing. This person is going to sue and probably represent themselves, costing them nothing (look up vexatious litigant), and force a settlement.

<snip>

Not sure where you're from, but the legal concept of a vexatious litigant was established in England after people had been abusing the court system with these types of lawsuits. Wikipedia says 1896.

This is a difference between the USA and the rest of the world. In the USA you can sue and lose and you only pay for your own costs. In many other parts of the world if you sue and lose you can be told to pay the costs of the other party as well.

 

[Puppycow]

Thought of something else, why doesn't the door shut automatically? Most of the doors in commercial buildings here have doors that shut as a fire protection mechanism.

At my place of work, the door shuts itself. You would have to use a wedge or something to keep it open. Then there are also stalls inside the bathroom, although you can see the urinals from outside if the door is open, but like I said, the door closes itself normally. You might accidentally get a peek if someone is going in or coming out while someone else is using the urinal, but that's it. The commodes have their own stall doors.

 

[Puppycow]

Progressive discipline as provided for in the union contract.

Then I guess you just need to start writing him up every time he does it (or breaks any other rule) until either he stops or he runs out of chances. Follow the procedure. Either outcome is a kind of success.

 

[Disbelief]

Warn him about harassment for creating a hostile work environment. If he does it again, show him the door. When he comes back from his union time off, show him the door when he does it again. It won't take long, the problem employee will most likely stay that way. Since I have worked in a union environment for 20+ years, I understand the issues.

 

[Scopedog]

This is a difference between the USA and the rest of the world. In the USA you can sue and lose and you only pay for your own costs. In many other parts of the world if you sue and lose you can be told to pay the costs of the other party as well.

I know of a case where a group of defendants spent tens of thousands of dollars to successfully get the plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant which led to a judgement for reimbursement of defendant's filing fees of a few hundred dollars. That particular vexatious litigant is judgement-proof (no income, no assets, no property, only payments "under the table"- this obviously doesn't apply to BStrong's person right now, but it may become a factor after their firing). I know all of this and the exact costs and reimbursement, to the penny, from court filings but I'm being intentionally vague because I know this vexatious litigant searches for information about themselves online and is still capable of making themselves a nuisance even though it is very difficult for them to file a lawsuit now.

This thread can probably be used against BStrong's institution or BStrong individually and the process of discovery will probably reveal it. BStrong needs to assume that the person is never operating in good faith. Their only goal is to make the situation so complicated and ambiguous that it's unlikely to be immediately dismissed by the judge. Even worse, judges understand vexatious litigation, but they seem to bend over backwards to accommodate some of them because they don't want to give the vexatious litigant any technicality to overturn the judge's decision on appeal.

It may be worth looking for BStrong's person on the California Vexatious Litigant List:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/vexlit.pdf

They probably aren't on there, but even if they are, they would still be capable of making themselves a very expensive nuisance even without a lawsuit. The purpose of a vexatious litigant is to make the lives of people around them miserable until they are paid to stop. Consult a lawyer.

 

[TragicMonkey]

"Is it or is it not untrue that at one point you discussed online having my client murdered by a strike team of wiener dogs for peeing with the door ajar, yes or no?"

I would be fantastic in the witness stand!

 

[plague311]

#Better things to worry about.

But thanks for the entertaining thread.

He wasn't asking you to worry about it. He was literally asking for consensus. You don't work there, why would you be worried about it?

You would think the cow orkers would just be glad he is not using a plastic jug at his desk, thank heaven for small favors and get back to work.

What random ass jobs have you worked at where the small favors that happen are someone not pissing in a ******* jug at their work? I'm curious what jobs people have, with the invention of port-a-potties, where I should be grateful someone didn't whip a jug out at their desk and urinate in it?

Thought of something else, why doesn't the door shut automatically? Most of the doors in commercial buildings here have doors that shut as a fire protection mechanism.

I have a special case scenario where I work, but I'm on-site at several different client locations and most of them don't have self-closing doors. A lot of buildings up here didn't have those requirements when built, unless in the areas the floods have destroyed the buildings. Internal doors, sure, but they open in towards the toilet. Just open it and stand in the way and it won't close.

 

[abaddon]

I know of a case where a group of defendants spent tens of thousands of dollars to successfully get the plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant which led to a judgement for reimbursement of defendant's filing fees of a few hundred dollars. That particular vexatious litigant is judgement-proof (no income, no assets, no property, only payments "under the table"- this obviously doesn't apply to BStrong's person right now, but it may become a factor after their firing). I know all of this and the exact costs and reimbursement, to the penny, from court filings but I'm being intentionally vague because I know this vexatious litigant searches for information about themselves online and is still capable of making themselves a nuisance even though it is very difficult for them to file a lawsuit now.

This thread can probably be used against BStrong's institution or BStrong individually and the process of discovery will probably reveal it. BStrong needs to assume that the person is never operating in good faith. Their only goal is to make the situation so complicated and ambiguous that it's unlikely to be immediately dismissed by the judge. Even worse, judges understand vexatious litigation, but they seem to bend over backwards to accommodate some of them because they don't want to give the vexatious litigant any technicality to overturn the judge's decision on appeal.

It may be worth looking for BStrong's person on the California Vexatious Litigant List:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/vexlit.pdf

They probably aren't on there, but even if they are, they would still be capable of making themselves a very expensive nuisance even without a lawsuit. The purpose of a vexatious litigant is to make the lives of people around them miserable until they are paid to stop. Consult a lawyer.

I had a quick scan of that list.

Best entry? Emery SOOS. Gotta be a hint, no?

 

[BStrong]

Problem child given warning letter yesterday afternoon.

I'll start a thread in community to provide background.

 

[Scopedog]

Problem child given warning letter yesterday afternoon.

I'll start a thread in community to provide background.

Probably a terrible idea to continue posting about it. The warning letter may be portrayed as libel and used as a conduit for discovery in the future. Assume that whatever you do is exactly what they want you to do in the fulfillment of their long term goals. There may be no good courses of action, only least bad. Please only communicate about this in an e-mail address separate from any personal one and don't text about it from your personal phone. Mixing work and personal communications exposes your personal communications to discovery.

Edited to add: For what it's worth, in the event of a lawsuit, the type of insurance that covers this will probably settle early to make the problem go away rather than engage the litigation. They're only concerned with saving money, not justice. This thread, if they become aware of it, will probably influence their decision.

 

[ahhell]

Probably a terrible idea to continue posting about it. The warning letter may be portrayed as libel and used as a conduit for discovery in the future.

Edited to add: For what it's worth, in the event of a lawsuit, the type of insurance that covers this will probably settle early to make the problem go away rather than engage the litigation. They're only concerned with saving money, not justice. This thread, if they become aware of it, will probably influence their decision.

So, you sound like a lawyer. Aren't warning letters basically necessary to avoid litigation? Showing that there is a pattern of behavior worthy of firing and what not.

 

[Scopedog]

So, you sound like a lawyer. Aren't warning letters basically necessary to avoid litigation? Showing that there is a pattern of behavior worthy of firing and what not.

I'm not a lawyer, BStrong or whoever in the institution needs to ask a lawyer what to do or hire the lawyer to do it for them or continue burying themselves, wait for the lawsuit, and let insurance handle it. If this is a person intending to sue and also a vexatious litigant representing themselves, then all they want is grounds for plausible accusations conforming to Civil Code or employment law or whatever. There may be innocent explanations and valid defenses, the problem is, the explanations and defenses raise more questions that the vexatious litigant will demand answers for and the defendant is incurring lawyer fees at every step. For example, in a lawsuit, the plaintiff might initially argue that leaving the bathroom door open is a lie, but no matter how many witnesses there are, the defendent will have to pay a lawyer to respond. Another example- if BStrong stops using his e-mail today and that comes up in discovery, the plaintiff will ask why. BStrong will likely have to say that Scopedog advised him to on the International Skeptics Forum, in a thread including discussion of execution methods, or risk perjury.

Edited to add: Even if none of this applies to BStrong's situation, hopefully it's useful to someone.

Edited to also add: The biggest red flag, apart from the antisocial bathroom behavior, is the apparent need to broadcast their IQ to their leadership.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again, and this is opinion of a layperson looking into a situation with only the information provided so grain of salt, the actions are so deliberately off and intentionally antagonistic that there is a "Oh no please don't throw me in the Briar Patch" tone to them.

Maybe not a literal, conscious "I dare you to fire me" but certainly I think the idea that his person doesn't see him getting fired as the logical outcome of his actions is so unlikely as to be barely worth acknowledging.

Again "I'm going to keep crapping with the door open despite being told not to" is not something one just... does.

I mean people are weird (citation needed) and pick the damnest hills to die defending, often times way, way, way past the point of it making sense or having any benefit to them so nothing is impossible but the overwhelming odds are someone is playing some sort of game here.

 

[carlitos]

Some people might welcome being fired and collecting unemployment insurance for a bit. Which, if they are union, the company probably wouldn't contest even if that employee were fired for cause.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Again, and this is opinion of a layperson looking into a situation with only the information provided so grain of salt, the actions are so deliberately off and intentionally antagonistic that there is a "Oh no please don't throw me in the Briar Patch" tone to them.

Maybe not a literal, conscious "I dare you to fire me" but certainly I think the idea that his person doesn't see him getting fired as the logical outcome of his actions is so unlikely as to be barely worth acknowledging.

Again "I'm going to keep crapping with the door open despite being told not to" is not something one just... does.

I mean people are weird (citation needed) and pick the damnest hills to die defending, often times way, way, way past the point of it making sense or having any benefit to them so nothing is impossible but the overwhelming odds are someone is playing some sort of game here.

I think it's most likely being done as erotic exhibitionism. This is the perpetrator's fetish. While I have no objections to fetishes, it's a breach of etiquette to involve an unwilling audience. A faux poo, as it were.