Man wins the legal right to not be 'fun' at work

Re:Man wins the legal right to not be 'fun' at work by readme on Sunday November 27, 2022 @01:39PM (#33765329)

only 3k

probably the cost of the alcohol and hotel rooms he declined

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man wins the legal right to not be 'fun' at work by omgwtfbyobbq on Sunday November 27, 2022 @01:42PM (#33765355)

3k now, possibly more later.

> The court ordered Cubik Partners to pay Mr T 3,000 euros and will examine Mr T's demand for damages at a later stage.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man wins the legal right to not be 'fun' at work by leke on Sunday November 27, 2022 @02:04PM (#33765593)

I pity the fool who doesn't pay him.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man wins the legal right to not be 'fun' at work by gjsman-1000 on Sunday November 27, 2022 @01:40PM (#33765341)

I wonder if he could sue them for workplace emotional and sexual abuse. I would argue that pressuring employees to do anything sexual is abuse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man wins the legal right to not be 'fun' at work by CyberDildonics on Sunday November 27, 2022 @02:25PM (#33765813)

Imagine if your boss pressured you to marry his son. How is this that much different?

Are you implying that that is common or accepted?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Man wins the legal right to not be 'fun' at work by black_puppydog on Sunday November 27, 2022 @01:54PM (#33765485)

The way I read this, there are still EUR 461,406 in salary since the nullified firing to be debated

[ Parent | on HN ]