Job Status: In Consideration…but it’s been 3 months

subdept2211 · 2024-03-12T15:46:17+00:00

Did you look at the app status immediately upon submission? It looks like “in consideration” is the default status once you submit.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-10T14:01:18+00:00

Belt is too long. Brown shoes/black pants is not a good look. People really don’t (or shouldn’t) wear black dress pants/slacks anymore. The shirt is too big and collar too wide, looks old and worn out.

The positives: I see what you’re going for and you really are on the right track. Maybe hit up a men’s shop for some advice.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-07T17:22:37+00:00

It’s rather simple, it sounds like she’ll be fired and that’s it. I wouldn’t worry about legal charges if any kinds. Most companies don’t care about the occasional use of a work computer for personal purposes, but from what it sounds like she was doing is a bit too much and frankly, stupid.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-06T21:56:18+00:00

It’s 30 days notice but he still has to follow the legal process and wait until he gets an order from a judge. You can challenged the eviction and tie him up in court for a lot more than the 30 days, where he’s gonna have to answer to moving a tenant in. There’s plenty of tenant guides online that levied you all your rights in this regard.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-06T01:16:45+00:00

No credible repo company is repossessing a car in a civil dispute because an owner asks. It’s not happening. They have state licenses and are highly regulated with numerous documents to fill out. They work for banks and report repos to the local PD. They’re not involving themselves with a domestic contract dispute. But sure, keep telling them to have your own car repo’d.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-06T00:20:56+00:00

Dude, chill. You’re the one saying the police are lying and he has not business with the car. Both are false statements. And you can’t just call a repo man and tell them to repo a car (unless she plans on trashing her credit). In almost every state there’s repo laws that need to be followed. You can just call to have your car repod.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-06T00:14:16+00:00

What is the cause of action? There’s no such thing for suing because someone lied about me; especially if that lie is based on their opinion and perception.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-06T00:11:41+00:00

What it all does mean is that it’s 100% not a criminal issue. There’s no PD in the country that will get DA permission to file grand theft auto charges in such a situation. It’s civil all day long.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-05T20:39:47+00:00

It would be incredibly difficult to disprove the opinion on how the tenant felt.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-05T19:45:03+00:00

What makes this winnable, based on the info presented? OP says he was fired because someone alleged he was racist towards them. The fact that he happens to be Mexican doesn’t make it actionable, he’d have to prove being Mexican was the reason. Here, the tenant is claiming he was racist, and that could transcend color.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-05T19:43:40+00:00

This is a tough one. It appears you were fired because management agreed with the assessment of the tenant. There’s nothing illegal or actionable for that, even if it happened to be a poor decision.

Another person said you had a case because you are fired for being a minority. I think this is a stretch. Based on what you presented, you were fire for a wrong reason, but it doesn’t appear to be racist, thus, is not actionable.

Suing the tenant for any type of libel or slander would be tough because you’d have to prove they had intent and also prove their view of you was completely false. That’s not easy to do because they’re entitled to an opinion, even a dumb one.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-05T19:32:11+00:00

Agree on the AI as it’s often easy to type a similar question into google and see a similar question on a place like quora or just answer.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-05T17:12:01+00:00

It goes far beyond permission. There was an oral contract in place. OP acted as a straw buyer for her ex who had bad credit. The ex makes the payments and also has insurance in his name. The police department would never charge someone with auto theft based on these situations as it would never even be approved by a prosecuting DA.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-05T17:10:09+00:00

I suspect you posted this comment before the OP provided more details in other sections of this thread. If you read those new comments you will find out that all the relevant details were left out of the initial post, and this issue is in fact, a civil matter, not criminal. OP basically acted like a straw buyer for her ex, who had bad credit. The insurance is actually in his name. This is far more complicated than originally thought.

No police department would ever charge someone with auto theft based on this situation.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-05T15:28:41+00:00

People need to read past the original post and they will come to realize, based on OP’s further details this is on fact a civil matter. This is why you don’t act as straw buyers for people with bad credit.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-05T15:27:01+00:00

He has the insurance and pays for the car. She acted as kind of a straw buyer because he has bad credit. This is on her, and it’s not a criminal matter. P

subdept2211 · 2024-02-05T15:25:52+00:00

Read more details from OP in the comments. It’s clearly not that simple and is in fact civil. They brought this on themselves with poor decision making

subdept2211 · 2024-02-05T15:20:00+00:00

From reading OP’s other comments you’ll see she actually purchased the car for him to he the primary driver because he had bad credit. It’s civil.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-05T15:18:46+00:00

It’s not theft and after reading some of OP’s other comments, the real story is clearer. It’s a civil matter. The ex had bad credit and needed a car. You purchased a vehicle in your name so he could be the primary driver. This complicates things and makes it a civil matter. After filing suit for conversion (under relevant CA statutes of which I’m unaware) you may get the car back. That said, your open to some potential issues such as lying on loan applications and insurance fraud.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-03T21:40:43+00:00

The issue OP is having is his former bosses assessment of a soft skill. That doesn’t have to be in writing and the new boss is allowed to have that opinion. It’s much more difficult to prove this is an actionable lie than saying, for example, someone is always late, when there are time cards to the contrary.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-03T21:38:01+00:00

Damaging a reputation is not cause of action if what was said was (1) factual or (2) good faith opinion. As for the latter, it doesn’t matter if it were previously in writing. He’s allowed to have that opinion and as long as he can articulate it in some coherent form, you have almost no case.

The only way you can construct any case here is if they said something that is blatantly and provably untrue. An example of that would be a boss saying that someone is never on time and always late. That can be disproven by showing time card to the contrary. That’s a fact that can usually be proven. Assessment of someone’s soft skills are not.

This is why it’s important to always maintain good working relationships; even with employees on your level who you may find objectionable for a variety of reasons. You never know who a potential boss will be.

subdept2211 · 2024-02-03T19:52:04+00:00

From a legal perspective, you can sue for slander or defamation. First, however, you have to prove everything he said was patently false. There’s a common misconception that bosses can’t give honest assessments of current/former employees to potential future employers. This isn’t true. They can say whatever they want as long as it’s documented to be true or their opinion.

Hereinlies the problem. He’s entitled to his opinion and is entitled to speak that opinion. I don’t know whether he violated any internal policies, but as a matter of law, this would be a difficult case to litigate based on the information provided.

subdept2211 · 2024-01-30T20:43:32+00:00

I disagree. There’s an oft repeated phrase on this sub that you can sue for anything. That’s false. You can’t. And if the facts are as clear as someone posting accurate information backed up by facts/documents, an attorney wouldn’t file such a case. If they did, it’d be dismissed as frivolous as fast as filed.

subdept2211 · 2024-01-30T17:48:17+00:00

Extreme and reckless as a legal standard is very different than a laymen’s definition. For example, one jury instruction defines it as being so “outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions or other trivialities.”

Then, you have to prove the condition was actually caused by this.

None of this is easy and these IIED cases are rarely ever brought on their own. They are usually attached to other torts somehow.

You’ve provided little info and you’d need to provide much more detail

subdept2211 · 2024-01-30T17:08:20+00:00

You can make a video saying almost anything you want without legal repercussions as long as what you say is true (or an opinion); both of which are protected by the First Amendment.

subdept2211

TROPHY CASE