During a pay dispute, an employee in Gerona, Spain, called his boss a “son of a bitch.” He then called the manager “crazy” as he stormed out of the office.

Think someone in your company could do that without getting fired? This manager didn’t think so either.

But a judge thought differently. The employee sued for wrongful termination (like many European countries, Spain doesn’t have “at-will” employment) and won.

Said the judge: “The social degradation of language has caused the expressions used by the plaintiff to be commonly used in many situations, especially arguments,” the Telegraph reports. Therefore, it wasn’t a serious enough offense to warrant termination.

The court ordered the company reinstate the employee or pay him the equivalent of $9,500.

Here’s what happened:

An employee told his boss he needed FMLA leave to care for his newborn son, who was in the hospital. He had worked for the company for less than a year, but would have been employed for 15 months by the time he’d use the leave.

The boss said he’d look into it. However, before any decision was made about his FMLA request, the company decided to let him go, citing an inadequate skill set.

The employee sued, claiming he was fired because he requested FMLA leave.

The company tried to have the case thrown out — the employee wasn’t eligible for FMLA when he was terminated, so he had no standing to sue.

But the court didn’t buy it. In addition to people who use FMLA, the law covers employees who “attempt” to use it — including people who ask for FMLA leave but are turned down. Those employees can still make a case for retaliation under the law.

That means managers need to be careful that documentation backs up any action taken against employees who’ve asked for FMLA leave — even if those employees weren’t eligible.

Cite: Reynolds v. Inter-Industry Conference on Auto Collision Repair

London law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer — the fourth largest firm in the world — recently had to lay off 14 attorneys.

That’s nothing new — like any other business, many law offices have had to make cutbacks. What sets Freshfields apart is the way it did the deed.

Normally, you’d expect the firm’s partners to deliver the news to the unlucky 14. But Freshfields’ head honchos delegated the dirty work to the company’s HR department.

But apparently the HR staffers weren’t up to the task either. So instead of arranging meetings, they made phone calls. And in a few cases where the attorneys didn’t pick up, they left messages with details of the layoff.

News about job loss is obviously hard to take, but hearing it on your answering machine certainly doesn’t help. One of Freshfields’ ex-employees called the partners “gutless” and said HR’s strategy “obviously made people feel incredibly under-valued,” the UK’s Daily Mail reports.

The firm’s defense: It was just the quickest and most efficient way to spread the word. A company spokesperson said the method wasn’t ideal, but “we were trying to get the information out as soon as possible.”

Experts recommend always delivering bad news in person. Not only is it simply the right thing to do, but how the termination process is carried out can affect whether or not someone’s angry enough to take an ex-employer to court.

Consider this scenario: You hire an employee. After a few months, you find out he dropped out of college — even though his resume said he’s graduated.

But in his first few months, he ended up being one of the top performers in his department.

Should he be fired for lying? Or does his value to the company outweigh the discrepancy?

What would you do in this situation? Let us know by dropping us a comment.

The company’s handbook said that employees fired for “gross misconduct” would not receive pay for earned but unused vacation time. The term “gross misconduct” was not defined.

One employee was fired after he failed a mandatory drug test. He did not receive any vacation pay.

He sued, claiming a failed drug test didn’t reach the level of gross misconduct and demanded a payout for the leave he didn’t use.

The court agreed. Since the company didn’t explain what conduct it was referring to, the judge tipped the scales in the employee’s favor and said “gross misconduct” refers to actions that are “intentional, wanton, willful, deliberate, reckless or in deliberate indifference to an employer’s interest.”

And, according to the court, failing a drug test didn’t make the cut. The employee was awarded his payout.

The lesson: Be careful about using terms that are open to interpretation without clearly defining them. If the handbook had simply said, for example, that employees forfeit their paid leave if they’re fired for breaking company policy, the court battle likely could have been avoided.

Cite: Lang v. Quality Mold.

Many employers follow a policy of paying out unused vacation time to employees who voluntarily resign — but not when employees are fired.

But that practice has come under scrutiny in some areas. Take this recent case from Massachusetts:

Francis Tessicini was fired from his job at Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS). Before the termination, he’d only used one day of his allotted paid vacation — but, according to company policy, he wasn’t owed payment (which would’ve amounted to about $1,800).

He sued, claiming the policy was against the law. The case made it to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which agreed EDS’s policy violated the state’s Wage Law.

Under the law, vacation is considered part of an employee’s wages, the court ruled, so it was owed to Tessicini along with his regular salary for work he’d completed.

That’s not the law of the land everywhere, though:

In 2007, the Minnesota Supreme Court took the opposite stance. Last year, Maryland passed a law clarifying that employers’ individual policies dictate whether vacation time will be paid out after termination.

The rules on payment of vacation time vary from state to state. Make sure you check your state’s laws and write your policy accordingly.

Cite: Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Attorney General

Employees must now wear underwear and deodorant.

The dress code is part of a new, three-page policy the city council of Brooksville hopes will increase professionalism, Tampa Bay Online reports. Revealing clothing and body piercings are now expressly banned, and employees are told to observe “strict personal hygiene,” including the deodorant clause.

Written under the heading of “unacceptable attire”: “the observable lack of undergarments and exposed undergarments.”

The underwear mandate and the other rules were approved by a council vote of 4-1, with the city’s mayor, oddly enough, as the lone dissenter. He said the requirement “takes away freedom of choice.”

Right now, 40% of employees say they’re willing to take a pay cut, according to a recent survey by the Society for Human Resources Management. That’s compared to 30% last quarter.

The likely reason: Fears of job loss have made workers more interested in alternative ways for their employers to save money.

They’re also more open to other cost-cutting strategies: The survey found 34% would be willing to take unpaid leave, compared to 24%.

Christine Porath and Christine Pearson of the Harvard Business Review spent a decade studying “office incivility” to determine its overall effects on the workforce.

The conclusions: Responses from jerks’ victims range from anger to vengeance. Also, the damage to job satisfaction and tenure may be more significant than many managers realize.

Based on responses from thousands of managers and employees, those with anti-social co-workers exhibit:

• a decrease in effort (48%)
• less time spent in the office (47%), and
• lower quality of work (38%).

Though many managers may brush aside concerns about office jerks, numbers like that suggest more action needs to be taken.

The bottom line: If a troublesome employee is allowed to continue that behavior, it might not be long before good workers start to become distracted — or leave the company at the first opportunity.

In one recent case, a 63-year-old man worked as the CFO for a struggling retail business. When the company needed to cut costs, he was told he was being laid off.

Trying to save his job, he offered to take a 30% pay cut instead. The company refused, and he was terminated. CFO duties were taken over by another employee, who performed that work in addition to the duties of his prior position.

The problem: The employee’s replacement was about 40 years younger and made significantly more than what the employee offered to work for.

Also, he claimed his boss made comments about his age while he was trying to negotiate. He sued, claiming he was laid off because of his age.

The company tried to have the case thrown out, but the court let it move forward. The employer was apparently unwilling to negotiate with the employee, even though his proposal could have saved them a lot of money.

That fact, combined with the boss’s alleged age-based remarks, made it reasonable to believe his age played a role in the decision. The case was sent to a jury for trial.

Cite: Carras v. MGS 728 Lex, Inc.