You’ve probably heard about the “quiet quitting” trend that’s been picking up steam. It’s a “movement” where an employee does the bare amount minimum of work, not looking for advancement, and sort of quits trying, while still technically fulfilling their duties.
The question is, even if they do what is required of them, can a quiet quitting employee still be sued for selling a bill of goods? Heather Palmore was an attorney at Napoli Shkolnik in New York, where she was terminated after being identified as a quiet quitter. What’s unusual is that the law firm wasn’t happy with just canning her. They sued Palmore saying, she “took advantage of the new remote work environment to ‘quiet quit’ her job.” They also noted she was trying to draw clients over to her own solo practice, while at work. The firm said she misrepresented her talent and abilities in order to get the job, and that she didn’t bring in the caseload that was promised.
But when it’s lawyer vs. lawyer, one shouldn’t be surprised when they sue back.
Palmore, three days later, sued the firm for racial discrimination, citing an incident where, according to Palmore, a co-worker left a stuffed panda hanging by a noose near her desk. Palmore said that action incited racial violence. The firm dismisses those claims entirely, calling the whole lawsuit a shakedown.
We’ll keep you posted as this case winds it way in court. It will set a historic precedent if the firm wins their quiet quitting case.
Add comment