3 ms·

To clarify: you took issue with this person quitting mainly? I'd be careful saying negative things about an employee for quitting - under at will laws, it can

To clarify: you took issue with this person quitting mainly? I'd be careful saying negative things about an employee for quitting - under at will laws, it can create legal liability to retaliate when someone exercises their at-will rights.

mavelikara 8y ago
Stating the fact - that the GP knew him only for few days in a professional capacity - should be legal, rt? Any negative inference from that is left for the company doing the reference check.
- greggarious 8y ago
  Yes, stating "I only knew him/her a short time" wouldn't run afoul. It's when you venture into something like "I only knew him a short time - he quit shortly after being hired. I don't have a high opinion of him" You're allowed to have opinions and share them. The problem comes if your opinion can be argued to be based on a legally protected action/characteristic. This is why many HR departments don't like their employees giving out references, which really sucks since "Yes, this person was employed during [DATES] and was not fired" is not super helpful.
jopsen 8y ago
Besides, if an employees quits after two weeks because it was a bad match, that's actually good. Sure, it's painful to find someone new. But it's a lot better than having to fire someone that who later. Or be stuck with someone who doesn't want to be there.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
I wouldn't, so long as it sticks to facts. No need to be unreasonably negative. "Honestly, he only worked here for two weeks, and then quit without notice. I didn't even know he'd use me as a reference." "Honestly, I don't know how much help I'll be. He worked here for two weeks, and then turned in his resignation stating he wasn't comfortable discussing his work with others. I didn't realize I'd be a reference before you called". These are facts, the first two easily verifiable in court - who would likely have no trouble believing the third.

mavelikara 8y ago

Stating the fact - that the GP knew him only for few days in a professional capacity - should be legal, rt? Any negative inference from that is left for the company doing the reference check.

greggarious 8y ago
Yes, stating "I only knew him/her a short time" wouldn't run afoul. It's when you venture into something like "I only knew him a short time - he quit shortly after being hired. I don't have a high opinion of him" You're allowed to have opinions and share them. The problem comes if your opinion can be argued to be based on a legally protected action/characteristic. This is why many HR departments don't like their employees giving out references, which really sucks since "Yes, this person was employed during [DATES] and was not fired" is not super helpful.

jopsen 8y ago

Besides, if an employees quits after two weeks because it was a bad match, that's actually good. Sure, it's painful to find someone new. But it's a lot better than having to fire someone that who later. Or be stuck with someone who doesn't want to be there.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

I wouldn't, so long as it sticks to facts. No need to be unreasonably negative. "Honestly, he only worked here for two weeks, and then quit without notice. I didn't even know he'd use me as a reference." "Honestly, I don't know how much help I'll be. He worked here for two weeks, and then turned in his resignation stating he wasn't comfortable discussing his work with others. I didn't realize I'd be a reference before you called". These are facts, the first two easily verifiable in court - who would likely have no trouble believing the third.