• teamevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    So before you say that, read the article. She refused to take her kid home when the school said he wasn’t mentally okay because she “couldn’t” miss work.

    The CEO of her company testified she absolutely could have missed the day for her kid.

    Turns out she wanted to meet her affair partner instead of helping her child suffering from a mental breakdown.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t know the situation, but of course the CEO will say that, whether she’d be punished or not

      • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        9 months ago

        This is probably 100% true, but in the article it is stated that the defendant agreed with it during trial.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I assume that the defense would demand evidence of that without just accepting it because it’s a pretty big point in the prosecutions case. They would probably check to see if something like that was in the employment contract, and presumably it was otherwise they would have objected when it was stated.

          • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Companies are smarter than to leave paper trails of things like retaliation or manipulation of employees for taking days off. Not saying it was actually happening, but if it was I wouldn’t expect there to be hard evidence anyway. The learned from having to fight Unions in court.

            • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              But again it would be in the defenses interest to massively investigate that claim. If there was any doubt that that was true it could be used as a defense.