A MA POWERBALL WINNER

[dales]

I'd run for POTUS and try to unseat Drumph.

Do I have your vote?

[RayThom]

I'd run for POTUS and try to unseat Drumpf.
Do I have your vote?

Show me proof that you registered with the FEC and I'll help kickstart your campaign. How does $5.00 cash money sound?

President Dales... has a nice ring to it, yes?

"YOU CAN'T SPELL DEMOCRACY (OR DONKEY) WITHOUT 'DALES' "

[Lord Jim]

I'd keep working - as director of my own philanthropic fund. Or, perhaps as owner/operator of an animal sanctuary.

But like Meade I'd be doing some world travel too, so I'd need staff.

That kind of answer makes sense to me...

Take for example the lady Jarl mentions who loves being a nurse...

Fine, I can understand that...

But if you have hundreds of millions of dollars, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to open your own clinic, and work the hours you want and take time to do other things as you choose, rather than continue to be tied to working mandatory shifts assigned to you by somebody else, and only having whatever vacation time you accumulate under the employee rules of that hospital?

[Sue U]

If I had an employee who won the lottery, I'd fire him/her. Seriously. Number one, there's someone else who actually needs a job, and b) I don't want an employee who has fuck-you money. If the person in question would want to keep working as a volunteer, that'd be fine, but not in a paid subordinate position.

[Bicycle Bill]

If I had an employee who won the lottery, I'd fire him/her. Seriously. Number one, there's someone else who actually needs a job, and b) I don't want an employee who has fuck-you money. If the person in question would want to keep working as a volunteer, that'd be fine, but not in a paid subordinate position.

You can't fire someone just because of age, sex/gender, religious affiliation, ethic origin, sexual orientation, or physical handicaps (unless the nature of the handicap can be shown to have a significantly adverse effect on the person's ability to perform the duties of their job), among other things — and I'm pretty sure that the employer unilaterally deciding that "you've got enough money that you don't need this job" would more than likely be one of those 'other things'.  So just what kind of a trumped-up reason/excuse would you give this employee when you handed him/her their walking papers?

Keep in mind that this person has a few million bucks worth of 'fuck-you' money so they've also got the wherewithal to pay for a good lawyer (or two) and bring a lawsuit claiming an unlawful and discriminatory termination under the provisions of the EEOC if they so desire, so your reason had better be a good one.

-"BB"-

[Guinevere]

"Rich" is not (yet, anyway) a protected class. Jobs are generally "at-will." Termination can be made for good reason, or no reason.

But in any event, its a moot point. No one who wins 750MM (or even 75MM) is calling in to work for long. No matter what some may claim.

[Sue U]

You can't fire someone just because of age, sex/gender, religious affiliation, ethic origin, sexual orientation, or physical handicaps (unless the nature of the handicap can be shown to have a significantly adverse effect on the person's ability to perform the duties of their job), among other things — and I'm pretty sure that the employer unilaterally deciding that "you've got enough money that you don't need this job" would more than likely be one of those 'other things'.  So just what kind of a trumped-up reason/excuse would you give this employee when you handed him/her their walking papers?

Keep in mind that this person has a few million bucks worth of 'fuck-you' money so they've also got the wherewithal to pay for a good lawyer (or two) and bring a lawsuit claiming an unlawful and discriminatory termination under the provisions of the EEOC if they so desire, so your reason had better be a good one.

-"BB"-

You are laboring under a common misconception about employment rights. An "at-will" employee (i.e., one without a formalized contract setting rights and conditions of employment) can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all, as long as it's not a prohibited reason (e.g., discrimination based on race, age, sex, disability, pregnancy or religion; just as an FYI, only 20 states have any form of discrimination protection for sexual orientation or gender identity, so in most U.S. places you can still legally discriminate against the trans and gaymosexxicans). Accordingly, I do not need to "trump[] up" a "good reason" to terminate any employee; there is no such thing as prohibited discrimination based on financial status; the EEOC is an agency, not a law, and therefore has no "provisions" under which to bring a lawsuit; and no actual employment lawyer would touch this case with a thirty-nine-and-half-foot pole.

In short, I could quite legally fire someone simply for being too rich.

[Sue U]

Guin:

"Rich" is not (yet, anyway) a protected class.

Rich is by definition a protected class, dear. Haven't you been reading the papers?

[Bicycle Bill]

You are laboring under a common misconception about employment rights. An "at-will" employee (i.e., one without a formalized contract setting rights and conditions of employment) can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all, as long as it's not a prohibited reason (e.g., discrimination based on race, age, sex, disability, pregnancy or religion; just as an FYI, only 20 states have any form of discrimination protection for sexual orientation or gender identity, so in most U.S. places you can still legally discriminate against the trans and gaymosexxicans). Accordingly, I do not need to "trump[] up" a "good reason" to terminate any employee; there is no such thing as prohibited discrimination based on financial status; the EEOC is an agency, not a law, and therefore has no "provisions" under which to bring a lawsuit; and no actual employment lawyer would touch this case with a thirty-nine-and-half-foot pole.

In short, I could quite legally fire someone simply for being too rich.

True enough, but if I've got time and money to burn and maybe an axe to grind or a personal vendetta to settle, what better way to do it than by tying someone up in knots with a lawsuit?  Patent trolls do it all the time, so much so that they have refined the practice into an art form.  Sure, I'd probably lose, but I would derive no small modicum of satisfaction over the amount of time, energy, and frustration I would have cost my adversary to deal with the matter.

-"BB"-

[Guinevere]

You are laboring under a common misconception about employment rights. An "at-will" employee (i.e., one without a formalized contract setting rights and conditions of employment) can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all, as long as it's not a prohibited reason (e.g., discrimination based on race, age, sex, disability, pregnancy or religion; just as an FYI, only 20 states have any form of discrimination protection for sexual orientation or gender identity, so in most U.S. places you can still legally discriminate against the trans and gaymosexxicans). Accordingly, I do not need to "trump[] up" a "good reason" to terminate any employee; there is no such thing as prohibited discrimination based on financial status; the EEOC is an agency, not a law, and therefore has no "provisions" under which to bring a lawsuit; and no actual employment lawyer would touch this case with a thirty-nine-and-half-foot pole.

In short, I could quite legally fire someone simply for being too rich.

True enough, but if I've got time and money to burn and maybe an axe to grind or a personal vendetta to settle, what better way to do it than by tying someone up in knots with a lawsuit?  Patent trolls do it all the time, so much so that they have refined the practice into an art form.  Sure, I'd probably lose, but I would derive no small modicum of satisfaction over the amount of time, energy, and frustration I would have cost my adversary to deal with the matter.

-"BB"-

Please do file a suit, right away. It's always fun to get the ridiculous ones tossed quickly (in your imaginary case, you haven't followed the required administrative procedures (at least here in MA), so the court is without jurisdiction to hear your matter, and you haven't alleged any protected class).