tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20636240.post7668674464760351970..comments2009-10-07T17:51:57.176-04:00Comments on Work/Life/Law 3.0: Mason v. Avaya Communications, Inc.Professor Prenkerthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16376139737429352787noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20636240.post-32690862384865168142008-04-01T15:33:00.000-04:002008-04-01T15:33:00.000-04:00Although Sarah's post raises a good point, I still...Although Sarah's post raises a good point, I still want to second Lilly's notion that something seems awry in the way the Lunsford incident was handled by Avaya. Perhaps the case's portrayal of the Lunsford incident was incomplete, but I think that Lunsford's (1)threat to go postal, (2) arsenal of weapons, and (3)fact that he compiled a hit list all go to show that Lunsford's situation is significantly troubling. <BR/><BR/>The timing for Lunsford's actions also need to be taken into consideration. This happened a short time after the Columbine shootings, when the topic of "hit lists" and domestic violence was not a laughing matter (not saying that it is now, but I hope you understand my point). I do believe that Mason's request to work from home posed an undue hardship, but I also believe that the situation could have been handled MUCH better by Avaya. In the interest of imposing blame, Avaya's neglect to professionaly and adequately handle a terrorist threat clearly caused Mason's distress. Although the case turned out in Avaya's favor, I don't that they are free from fault.Vic Simianuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12299175451232031137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20636240.post-68976492193899818262008-03-31T11:00:00.000-04:002008-03-31T11:00:00.000-04:00While I can definitely see where your concerns are...While I can definitely see where your concerns are coming from, I think it is important to realize that not much information about the Lunsford incident is included in the case that we read. Therefore a lot of questions about how the employer dealt with the situation are left unanswered.<BR/><BR/>I have hard time believing that it was something so detrimental as to require him to transfer because there were no other complaints that we know of. In the text we read that requiring employers to transfer employees for any reason is severely criticized as a way to remedy any situation.<BR/><BR/>I just think that before we make any rash judgments about how the Lunsford incident was handled that we should be better informed of what exactly happened, who was involved, and if there were any repercussions due to the incident.Sflohrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12043064670566815141noreply@blogger.com