2 ms·
I think we're pretty much on the same page here tbh. As I also was told, and believe, that being careful about the words "for cause" is almost always the right
by harryh 11y ago
I think we're pretty much on the same page here tbh. As I also was told, and believe, that being careful about the words "for cause" is almost always the right thing to do. I think it's pretty much only this series of steps that can get you into trouble:
1) Employee A claims that Employee B harassed them
2) Company doesn't put in any effort to hear Employee B's side of the story
3) Employee B is fired "for cause" for sexual harassment. Generally it's also not just the words here. It also comes with things like "no severance pay even though severance pay was typical for other fired employees."
4) It turns out that the original claim was bogus
In this specific scenario, the company could have problems.
- tptacek 11y agoI know we're going on and on here, and I want to say that I generally enjoy your comments and am not just trying to be the picky message board jerk I normally am. However: It is very unlikely that a competent hiring practice will generate implied contracts for severance pay. Employees are not generally entitled to severance. Awarding severance to one employee probably doesn't create an implied contract with other employees. I keep coming back to this (elsewhere on the thread, too): the reason legalese employment agreements always tend to look the same is that they are designed to settle all these issues up front. I learned this when I had briefly hoped to create a more humane employment contract and employment handbook at a previous job, only to find out that pretty much only a lawyer can write either of those two things. I think(?) the only thing at stake in a firing "for cause" is a later claim for defamation --- unless the terminated employee has a special contract which entitles them to things like severance unless terminated for cause.
- harryh 11y ago> Awarding severance to one employee probably doesn't create an implied contract with other employees. I believe that this is incorrect. If you fire 10 employees in a row and they all get severance but then the 11th doesn't they absolutely can hire a lawyer and ask why and start digging into events that lead up to the firing. If it turns out that they were fired for sexual harassment without being given a chance to refute the claims and then it turns out that the claim might have been bogus the company is going to be in a bad spot. And it's probably going to end up paying out a 5 (or maybe 6) figure check to make the problem go away. (PS: totally understand that you aren't being a picky message board jerk. No worries at all)
- tptacek 11y agoI am very, very interested in seeing documentation or expert opinion to back this up, because it implies that you can easily and accidentally create an implied contract for severance simply by offering one-off severance. That would imply that there's a legal disincentive to offer one-off severance (for instance, for a no-harm no-foul sorry-to-waste-your-time bad hire).
- harryh 11y agoUnfortunately I have no expert opinion to give here. Merely somewhat educated amateur. Certainly at this point we are well into "go talk to an employment lawyer" territory. They could very well contradict what I have said. If that happens I will stand corrected.
- phamilton 11y agoI'm curious about a later lawsuit from the harassed employee. Does firing "for cause" provide documentation that you did indeed address the harassment problem, whereas firing because "at will" could be unrelated?