A year into COVID they had an all hands where they congratulated us on exceeding our productivity goals after a year of WFH. Then they announced that everyone was gonna have to come back to the office, and that because a different OU screwed up and got their dicks sued off there wasn’t any money in the incentives budget and not to expect much in the way of bonuses that year.
Edit: ooh forgot to mention that a bunch of us pushed back because we didn’t think it was safe yet, we got overridden by upper management, then after we came back in our state set a record for daily new COVID cases and daily deaths. It swept through the office, a bunch of my coworkers got really sick and one lady’s husband died.
They offered to cater lunch and then didn’t buy enough burgers for all of us. It was an all-hands meeting and they know how many people worked there, but they somehow thought that only about half of us would show up to the meeting we were all required to attend in person.
I wonder if she can sue them… like they forced everyone into the office and so everyone got COVID and that lady’s husband literally died… that’s pretty fucking horrible. There should be a way to “get back” at them (so to speak) for being so fucking negligent that someone literally fucking died.
There should be. Could get creative. Eventually the law recognized take home exposure duty for asbestos product sellers. The problem with going after the employer is that any action for injuries derivative from an employee-employer relationship is limited to the exclusive jurisdiction of workers’ comp., which absolutely does not cover take-home exposure.
There is always negligence, though. Everyone is liable for the foreseeable, actual harms of their conduct, or said another way, every person owes a duty to all other persons to use reasonable care to avoid causing injury. I guess that claim would get hung up on the medical proof of causation; how could a doctor say the work exposure was the one that caused the disease when the whole state was setting records. Maybe on the right facts, as is always the case for new precedent.
