• teamevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      So before you say that, read the article. She refused to take her kid home when the school said he wasn’t mentally okay because she “couldn’t” miss work.

      The CEO of her company testified she absolutely could have missed the day for her kid.

      Turns out she wanted to meet her affair partner instead of helping her child suffering from a mental breakdown.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t know the situation, but of course the CEO will say that, whether she’d be punished or not

        • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          10 months ago

          This is probably 100% true, but in the article it is stated that the defendant agreed with it during trial.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            I assume that the defense would demand evidence of that without just accepting it because it’s a pretty big point in the prosecutions case. They would probably check to see if something like that was in the employment contract, and presumably it was otherwise they would have objected when it was stated.

            • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Companies are smarter than to leave paper trails of things like retaliation or manipulation of employees for taking days off. Not saying it was actually happening, but if it was I wouldn’t expect there to be hard evidence anyway. The learned from having to fight Unions in court.

              • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                But again it would be in the defenses interest to massively investigate that claim. If there was any doubt that that was true it could be used as a defense.

    • chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Gun manufacturers can afford lawyers and congressmen…some poor slob with a day job can’t do that.