imported post
I assume you are referring to the Pizza Hut case. Even if it was against their policy, why didn't they give him a write-up warning instead of firing him? It seems to me like just a bad company when they aren't interested in either protecting their employees or allowing them to protect themselves. Most companies have a standard where for minor violations of their policy you would be written up, followed by a final warning, and then firing. While Pizza Hut considered their weapons ban as a "major policy" for someone who had worked there for a decade, you would think they would have made an exception and just written him up. Obviously, they wanted to make an "example" of the guy.
