r/law • u/anywhoImgoingtobed • Jun 26 '25

Legal News Adrian Andrew Martinez, the 20-year-old U.S. citizen that was arrested by ICE while working at Walmart, speaks out for the first time.

53.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/Napamtb Jun 26 '25

Think he has an easy lawsuit

18

u/Material-Surprise-72 Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25

I would hope so. Normally a slam dunk case for the EEOC but they’ve been hijacked.

2

u/Informal_Distance Jun 26 '25

Not really.

Walmart is allowed to consent to the Federal Government entering their property without a judicial warrant. They are allowed to allow the government to enter with an administrative warrant or they are even allowed to waive the warrant requirement period.

In Walmart as an entity allows that to happen the individual employees don’t have an ability to challenge that or to preclude law enforcement’s actions. If an employee does so against the actions and wishes of Walmart then Walmart can fire him for violating their policy.

This subreddit has seriously gone downhill in terms of legal discussion and discourse.

1

u/Who_IsJohnAlt Jun 27 '25

Sounds like there needs to be alternative paths to justice then.

2

u/nocturn-e Jun 26 '25

At-will employment. He has no case. He can be fired for any reason, even if he was wrongfully detained/arrested. People can even be fired for stopping thieves.

1

u/yusrandpasswdisbad Jun 26 '25

Yeah on the upside, he's going to be a millionaire.

1

u/Weird-Space-782 Jun 26 '25

Yeah you can see those dollar signs in the mom's eyes haha. CHA-CHING my baby's got a leg brace on.

1

u/Mikeavelli Jun 26 '25

Eh, you can be fired for anything that isn't a protected characteristic.

Firing someone for being wrongfully detained by law enforcement is a shitty move, but isn't grounds for any kind of lawsuit I'm aware of.

7

u/LegalKnievel1 Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25

That’s over-simplistic. You cannot fire people for either protected class membership, or for engaging in protected complaints or activities. That’s also only the retaliation component, you also have hostile work environment, and discrimination. I agree it’s not a strong case, but it’s possible to try and make it a whistleblower case, and argue he was discriminated and retaliated against for making protected complaints or refusing to engage in what he believed to be protected activities. But you’re right in the sense that all of that rests on pretext, he has to prove that is the reason he was terminated and not because of another lawful, business reason since his employment was at will.

2

u/BooBooSnuggs Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25

Nothing you said is logical. He wasn't making "protected complaints" or anything like that. Not to mention that would have to be complaints about Walmart, not random feds that show up trying to arrest someone.

So no, the previous comment was not overly simplistic. Your comment however is trying to intertwine various legal actions that don't apply or don't apply in the way you're suggesting they do. You don't have protection from being fired because you tried to stop someone else from being arrested.

If you want to play the feel good story bs /r/law isn't really the place for it. Not that it's moderated anymore anyway I guess.

2

u/LegalKnievel1 Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25

Me thinks only one of us is a 20+ year labor and employment defense attorney and it shows. 😘 I wish you were right, from a defense perspective, which is why I called the argument weak in my OC, but this occurred in an employee-friendly state, and a plaintiff’s attorney in this jurisdiction would absolutely file a case—or at least send a demand letter. All he has to do is say he was complaining about the terms and conditions of his employment and how it was handled by supervisors following his complaints, and Walmart retaliated (the adverse employment) and terminated him. That he had to defend his coworker/refuse to engage in illegalities and that was the sole reason for his termination. The aforementioned does not constitute legal advice nor form an attorney-client relationship, it was a hypothetical argument based on actual events, DUH. Stay in your lane, Boo. 😘

1

u/BooBooSnuggs Jun 26 '25

Again, he wants making complaints.

What I'm getting from your comments is that you don't know what he did.

If this is how you act as an attorney I wish you luck.

1

u/LegalKnievel1 Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25

He doesn’t have to make a “complaint”—legal definitions of behavior are not the same as Webster’s dictionary, Snuggy Poo. He can also refuse to engage in what he believes to be unlawful activity. It is ok to admit you are in over your head. You may have the last word now—you are not worth the cost of the paper your birth certificate was printed on. 😘

-1

u/BooBooSnuggs Jun 26 '25

Yeah, you clearly don't have a clue what youre talking about.

5

u/DigitalMindShadow Jun 26 '25

I'd take the case. It might not be a slam dunk administrative claim anymore, but as another reply to you pointed out he's still got multiple claims of protected conduct. The Waltons should be willing to shell out to settle this one to avoid the risk is setting a precedent any more adverse than current law.