Hey Bezos: Wage Theft... Is A... FELONY. And Despicable, As A Form Of Retaliation, Against People Exercising Their NLRB-Protected Union Organizing Rights.

In most states in the US (it seems this is true in the State of New York, and. . . it is definitively true, in Colorado, Illinois and California), any employer who wrongfully withholds wages from any employee willfully. . . becomes liable for an up to $500 per day fine. If it persists for more than one month, the employer may individually be charged with wage theft (and the employee has six years to prove his/her case) -- a felony for which one year of jail is often the ultimate outcome. [Due to this, at my pro bono clinic, we routinely get such cases paid out in full, plus a $500 kicker -- and usually within a week or two, for employees who've been essentially placed in involuntary servitude.] Mr. Bezos should take note of this Smith case.

Here is that very cogent section of the overall brief (the Smith case facts portion) filed, last week -- before the NLRB in Phoenix, on the JFK8 retaliations in full, and a bit:

. . .However, Mr. Smith’s record of UPT use shows that a staggering 56 hours of UPT were inexplicably deducted from his UPT bank. This significant discrepancy, taken in conjunction with Mr. Smith’s repeated complaints to HR and management about mysterious manipulations of his UPT balance, should have placed the burden for the Employer to prove how Mr. Smith could have a negative UPT balance that warranted his termination. The ALJ failed to adequately factor the discrepancies in the records into her decision, nor consider that one manifestation of anti-union animus was to manipulate their records to establish a basis for Mr. Smith’s discharge. . . .

[Mr. Gomez] had no idea whether the person before him called DYY6 to inquire about the panorama case, only to be told it was closing and not to worry about it, or even revealing the rush by DYY6 to have Mr. Smith fired to prevent his transfer to JFK8. . . .

[Many] employers argue that knowledge of protected activities or anti-union animus cannot be imputed to decision makers who implement decisions to discharge, because they were not aware of the protected activity engaged in. Case law does not support that argument. . . .

. . .[In an earlier case, called Sunbelt, the employer's] argument lacks merit because there is no rule that requires the Director to prove directly that the ultimate decision maker acted with anti-union animus. Instead, it is well-established that anti-union animus may be inferred from circumstantial or direct evidence. See Challenge Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 815 F. App'x 33, 40 (6th Cir. 2020); Charter Communs., Inc. v. NLRB, 939 F.3d 798, 815 (6th Cir. 2019); FiveCAP, Inc. v. NLRB, 294 F.3d 768, 778 (6th Cir. 2002); W.F. Bolin Co. v. NLRB, 70 F.3d 863, 871 (6th Cir. 1995); AutoNation, Inc. v. NLRB, 801 F.3d 767, 775 (7th Cir. 2015); Big Ridge, Inc. v. NLRB, 808 F.3d 705, 714 (7th Cir. 2015); Loparex, LLC v. NLRB, 591 F.3d 540, 546 (7th Cir. 2009); NLRB v. Louis A. Weiss Mem'l Hosp., 172 F.3d 432, 442 (7th Cir. 1999). "'Circumstantial evidence inviting an inference of animus includes, among other examples, 'the company's expressed hostility towards unionization combined with knowledge of the employees' union [*4] activities' and 'proximity in time between the employees' union activities and their discharge.'" Charter Communs, Inc., 939 F.3d at 815 (internal citations omitted). Additionally, "[i]n cases involving employers that are corporations [], one must look to the employer's agents (the managers and supervisors) -- whose actions can be imputed to the employer -- to find the motivations for their actions." Louis A. Weiss Mem'l Hosp., 172 F.3d at 442. . . .

Amazon’s creation of a false Negative UPT record for Mr. Smith to be picked up by the HRRC, to implement his termination is a classic “cat's-paw” case used in discrimination law. In such cases the person tasked to sign off on the final decision may not have discriminatory or retaliatory animus, but causing another person to implement the discriminatory action on their behalf taints the final decision with animus. . . .

Now you know. This Bezos guy. . . geez. What a tool. A very rich, feckless. . . tool, at that.

नमस्ते