Does Conal O'Rouke have a valid claim to pursue a lawsuit against Pricewaterhouse Coopers and Comcast?

  • Comcast totally responsible for its customer's job loss

    Mr O'Rouke has a totally valid claim in his lawsuit and should be adequately compensated in lieu of Comcast's shoddy customer service. Comcast has no business contacting its customers' employers for whatever reason, which is what caused Mr O'Rouke to lose his job. I happen to have inside information on the type of customer service Cable companies provide to its clients. They hire incompetent personnel in their staff who are actually their buddies and cronies.

  • Conal O'Rouke absolutely has a claim against his former employer and Comcast.

    Just because a company is a contractor for another company does not give them the right to allow their employees to be manipulated into false charges and billing. When Pricewaterhouse Coopers fired O'Rouke, they essentially said it was perfectly fine that they could "rip off" an employee without consequences. They should have to pay back pay and pay him until he finds a comparable job.

  • Sure why not

    People apparently have a valid reason to sue any one these days. If they have money then apparenty, it makes it a valid reason. I think people are way entirely to "sue-happy" these days, but who am I to judge? Like the whole redbull deal for instance... seriously. Didnt give you wings?

  • There is no evidence to support any kind of malfeasance

    Price Waterhouse Coopers called O'Rourke in for an internal ethics investigation, and dismissed him afterward. There is no basis for speculation that anyone at Comcast (including Lawrence Salva, Comcast’s chief accounting officer and controller (who formerly worked at Price Waterhouse Coopers)) had anything to do with the firing. To conclude that his complaints and his firing are causally related because they occurred at the same time would be fallacious -- a direct link needs to be proven.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.