http://abcnews.go.com/Business/massachusetts-man-fired-revealing-wife-cancer/story?id=13845661

I think that it probably wasn't a problem, until he said he may have sporatic hours due to the illness.  The business likely didn't care she had cancer, burst into flames, or was infecting people with the ebola virus (this is business after all).  But, say your hours would be sporatic, even if you would get work done, is a no-no.  So, no matter how many good years you had with the company, this one bit means you are gone.  Of course the company ended up saying utter B.S about how they were considering laying him off.  They then, after he is let go, post an ad for his position.

Maybe the rules should be changed to make it fully at will, and companies can flat out say you were fired for age, health of family member, religious or political beliefs, sexual orientation, or the fact you refused to sleep with your boss when said you either sleep with them or you are fired. If the rules were changed, then at least employers could be honest, and not fear legal action.  Sure, why not?  Why not allow employers to run whatever baudy and sexually offensive places they have, if that is what works to generate income.  Shoot, why not allow smoking in the building either, and they can can people who refuse to smoke.  Heck, if an employer, for example, finds you like Fox News, and listens to it in the car, the could fire you for that also.  At least doing this would enable businesses to be more properly labelled, and the free market could help better pick the winners and losers.

The employer shouldn't have fired him that easily. They should have given him a chance to do his work with less hours or accomodated him in some way to ensure he could do his job. Maybe demote him to a position he could handle.

While I disagree with how this employer let go of the employee. I mean if the work isn't going to be done, then you have to hire someone else. Now did they have to fire him? No they shouldn't have he was a good employee. But should he have retained his specific job, if incapable of performing his duties then no he shouldn't have.

Its complicated, and I feel sorry for this guy. I was in a similiar position. I got a very bad anti-biotic resistant toe infection. I was working a security job and had to take sick leave, after three weeks they contacted me, they were like "You've done your allotted 3 weeks sick leave and must return to work". I told them I had to be in the hospital four hours a day and their is no way I could return to work yet. So they informed me that I was being laid off.

Now I had a doctors note I contacted the labour board about being terminated. They said that my employer could not terminate me for being sick. I asked if I could get my job back and the labour board told me, if you bring this to court you can get severance pay. I decided not to go to court and fill out tons of paper work for like 250$.

Fact is employers see only one thing, money and no matter what happens in your life if your not able to give them the money they want they will toss you aside. At least most will. Its sad but its true!

Okay so what if he were the one who had cancer and he wouldn't be able to come into work for 10 months because of treatment. Should they keep him on then out of pity?

I'm not saying it isn't sad; but if he can't meet the hours that he was hired for then why is it the company's burden to pick up his slack just because it's a sad situation? It's a small company so they probably don't have the extra manpower or profit margin to be able to afford to handle that much loss of time.

On the other hand, it isn't his fault either so maybe he should sue them? That seems to be the default answer today.

In the past when I have seen follow-ups to stories of companies firing employees in what seems like a heartless manner, it is usually pretty clear that the employee was fired because they were an awful employee and the incident gave the company the necessary justification to fire the employee without legal consequences.

I agree with the employer here. If people don't work the stated contract hours (unless THEY are ill) that is grounds for firing.

The state and federal governments then have the responsibility to make sure him and his wife can live, but it doesn't fall on the business to do that or accommodate his wishes.

Now if he was ill it would be different and one should get the statutory time off. After that (not sure about US law here) they can fire him.

If he had cancer then they should temporarily fill his position. Then when he is good enough to return to work they should return his position to him. Companies hire temps all the time, infact at my job I was sick for three weeks, during that time they had hired someone else to temporarily fill my spot. But then because I was still sick after three weeks they gave the guy the job full time.

So the employer if he was sick should have hired someone to temporarily do his job until he was better. Nobody should loose their job because they are sick, unless its a permanent sick like paralysis or something. But if the guy will be back in shortly or even ten months they should hold onto a position for him.

Maybe not even give him his old job back, but find a way to give him some kind of position!

Yeah they could definitely do that.  But I'm sure that if this guy was good at his job they will be dying to take him back when he can meet his time obligations.  But they shouldn't have to pay him if he isn't going to be there was my main point.

Usually does seem that way,  Aside from which Mass has universal healthcare which the new US "universal" healthcare system is mimicing.

Wait. There's a US state with a UK/European-like health system?

Yes, and its a massive failure.

GOP nominee Mitt Romney was the governor that presided over the creation of the law. 98% of Massachusettes residents have insurance. Insurance that is teetering on destroying the state. I understand why Europeans want (or at least think its a great idea) for the US to adopt their health care system, but Mass is a shining example of why it doesn't work. Their costs are far in excess of the rest of America (33% higher than the American average), or about $10,000 per person. That is why adoption of a universal schema in America is such a difficult, if not damning activity - our system is so screwed up, adoption of a universal system is going to increase healthcare spending from 15% of GDP to somewhere between 25-30%.....Which is the exact opposite reason of why most would vouch for the system (as European nations spend far less on health care in comparison to GDP, not more).