Don't know about the US, but in countries with strong (or existing) worker unions the unions would jump at that kind of case to help the employee with expenses, legal counsel, and what have you.

Unions definitely have their problems, but keeping the employers on their toes about actually breaking the law is one of their big benefits.

Of course all that doesn't help with all the other things you brought up, so there's that.

Getting fired for sharing salary information is not high up on my list of concerns, in part for that reason.

Maybe. Depends on the state, the complaint, and the lawyer. Several states allow/force the loser to pay legal fees, to allow small-fry folks with legit complaints to fight against larger orgs with money to spend.

Lawyers may also take cases on contingency, or you may be able to find legal aid / pro-bono / reduced rates.

There are also lots of levers available via state or provincial labor boards. These will vary greatly, and may not replace a lawyer or lawsuit -- but some will.

> Law suits burn bridges (you'll never get a recommendation from an employer you've sued).

They already fired you for reasons that are "wrongful" -- the bridges are already burned. Were they going to give you a good recommendation before the lawsuit? Probably not. Maybe they didn't, and that's why there are lawyers involved.

> Law suits prevent future jobs (would you hire someone who sued a previous employer?). And wrongful termination isn't the end.

Depends on the role and hiring pool.

For roles that are harder to fill, or situations where I'm willing to take a good hard look at the candidate then maybe. Like, these are public records, and if I'm on the fence I could always just get a copy of those records. Plus there is plenty of shitty behavior on the part of employers -- no shortage of stories about it here on HN -- so I'm willing to give a qualified candidate the benefit of the doubt.

Totally agree with your point if this is for a role where I get 500-1000+ resumes -- plenty of talent out there, so why settle for someone who picked a fight?

I'm positive the company would have evidence that the terminated individuals were late by 1 minute on two separate occasions. But the company might also have evidence that other employees were also late and not terminated.

You can pretty easily create an evidentiary trail that "Person X did thing Y, and was then terminated". What's harder is creating an evidentiary trail that "Other people at the company are also regularly terminated for thing Y".

If the company really does fire every employee that has two 1-minute tardiness', then it's going to be a real struggle to claim the firing was pretextual. If this firing is the first time the company has fired someone for those reasons, the company is in real trouble.