David A. Ramirez v. Walmart

March 26, 2017. When the manager's assistant spoke again, that the "... layoffs can continue..." This detail can not be neglected, or overlooked. We have then that: Night shift: Year Month Associated Workload Store 2014 Nov. 30 100% 100% 2017 Mar. 17 140% 100% 2018 Jul. 12 250% 100% We have that the store has not been partially closed, by 2018 it is still open at 100%. The responsibilities that were in 2014, remain the same for 2018. But the remaining staff, not only have to answer for their duties, but also for the staff that has been fired. Your workload is now 250%. The questions are: Why did the Walmart lawyer tell the court that this was a protected activity? In serial dismissals, as a protected activity, do statutes allow that the work left by dismissed personnel must be charged to the remaining personnel? In serial dismissals, as a protected activity, do the bylaws allow the dismissed staff to record a "false cause" as an excuse to be fired? In serial dismissals, as a protected activity, do the bylaws allow staff to be subjected to forced labor before being dismissed?