4 ms·

It sounds like the person received unemployment benefits until their intended resignation date. That seems fair, right? You certainly wouldn’t receive unemploym

by baddox 8y ago

It sounds like the person received unemployment benefits until their intended resignation date. That seems fair, right? You certainly wouldn’t receive unemployment benefits after you resigned. As for wrongful termination, I don’t know the law behind that, but this certainly doesn’t obviously seem wrongful to me. What am I missing?

chrismeller 8y ago
Yeah, that's the way I read it. Though they didn't specify, I assumed they gave the 60 days notice because they had a new job that, for whatever reason, was slated to start on January 1st. I don't think I'd ever have given that much notice (unless it was for some reason legally required) for specifically this reason. Either way, even if I didn't have any new employment lined up, I would have expected to collect my remaining paychecks and then that would be that - no unemployment at all. Aside from a little extra cash (since the unemployment they did get wouldn't have been anywhere near the amount their paychecks would have been for) I'm also not really sure what the end goal here is... just put this crappy employer behind you and move on.
scott00 8y ago
Unemployment benefits are likely to be substantially less than wages. In Massachusetts, unemployment benefits are about 50% of wages, with a cap of $795 per week (which works out to an annualized rate of $41,340/year). So the employee is probably in worse financial shape than they expected to be. IMO, the issue here isn't wrongful termination, it's providing false information to the state. Firing someone because they intend to resign in the future is probably legal, but it doesn't change the fact that they were fired. It sounds like the employer reported that they resigned, which simply isn't true.
- baddox 8y ago
  There’s no question that unemployment benefits are worse for that employee than their full employment benefits, and that extended unemployment benefits are better for the employee than them ending on January 1. I just don’t think that’s a sufficient argument for saying that the employee is entitled to those things legally or ethically.
  - scott00 8y ago
    From a legal standpoint, the relevant language is "no benefits shall be paid to an individual under this chapter for... the period of unemployment... after the individual has left work (1) voluntarily..."[1]. I hope we can agree the employee did not leave voluntarily. There is no statutory language I could find that makes the fact that the employee intended to leave at some point after the date of actual separation relevant to the eligibility for benefits. Ethically, the thing I have the biggest problem with is the employer characterizing the circumstances of the separation as anything other than a firing on November 1st. Effectively they are trying to say they fired the person on November 1st, then they rehired that person on January 1st, at which point they immediately resigned. I just don't think that's an accurate description of the circumstances. [1] Massachussetts General Law Chapter 151A, Section 25, preamble and paragraph e: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter151A/Section25 https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Ch...
    - cannonedhamster 8y ago
      It's also entirely possible that the company could have worked to retain the employee. This happens all the time. The only time it matters is if the employee quits on the spot or was given notice of termination. Notice of intent to quit is not quitting. I've in fact quit a company in Massachusetts before when I was younger because I was falsely accused of theft. They provided me unemployment which I refused on principle. Turned out the manager who accused me was the one stealing. Karma paid her a visit in that she was stabbed during a robbery on the shift she had to cover because of me leaving (she was fine with stitches). After this is when she was caught. So fun times all around.
  - harimau777 8y ago
    Due to the difference between pay and unemployment benefits, the employee still has less money at the date when they would have resigned and they may have been counting on that money to see them through the job search. During the two months after they gave notice, the employee might have intended to send out applications in the evenings. Since there is often a significant lead time between submitting an application and hearing back, the employee may have been counting on the two months of employment to burn some of that wait. Hiring is probably also cyclic. For example, between Thanksgiving and New Years is probably not a very productive time to be looking for jobs. The employee may have been counting on the two months before their resignation date to get them through one of these slow periods.
- lasereyes136 8y ago
  The post said they were fired without cause. I don't know about Massachusetts but in right to work states, people can be fired without a reason or a notice period, and it is up to the person to prove there was a reason that is illegal.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    > and it is up to the person to prove there was a reason that is illegal. And the company has the money, legal team, and power. And the person has, well, less money, and no legal team, and low/no power. And that's why all layoffs and firings need to include why. There shouldn't be any of this without-reason dismissals.
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    In Massachusetts you automatically get unemployed benefits unless the employer files paperwork for termination due to cause. The de facto assumption is that the employee will receive unemployment benefits up until the date that those benefits are exhausted. The only way that this stopped was if the employer started that the employee quit or that they were terminated for cause, neither of which sounds true in this case as terminating someone for an intention to quit is not cause. Obviously IANAL but as far as I can tell the employee is entitled to unemployment benefits.
jawns 8y ago
I think the employee made a mistake by giving 60 days notice; generally, that is only called for in very senior-level positions. Beyond that, the employeee didn't have another job lined up. So (at least from the employer's point of view) it seems as if the employee intended to use those 60 days to find another job, and I think an employer could reasonably assume that they would not be putting in their all during that time, so best to cut the line. All that said, it's not fair for the fired employee to receive unemployment benefits only until the date on which they would have stopped working if they had not been fired. Unemployment assistance is a public benefit that people (generally) qualify for if they are fired without cause; it helps them get by until they are able to find another job. You can qualify for unemployment assistance even if your work has a defined end date. I have a buddy who works on film sets, so his jobs typically last 4-5 months. But even if the film is scheduled to wrap up filming in a week, he would still qualify for unemployment if he were let go, and not just for the single week he would have been working. The implicit understanding of giving notice is, "I intend to work for you until this date." But if the employer fires them prior to that date, it totally invalidates whatever notice was given. Keep in mind that date of notice and date of separation are different. Between those two dates, the employee has the same expectation of employment, and the public benefits associated with it, as any other employee. If you get fired prior to your date of departure, whether or not you have given your employer the courtesy of notice, then you should qualify for the same unemployment benefits as someone who has not given the courtesy of notice. Think about it. It would really suck if Employee A and Employee B both intend to stop working two weeks from now; Employee A is a jerk and plans to give no notice; Employee B is nice and gives two weeks' notice; both employees are fired without cause several days later; and Employee A gets at most 10 days' worth of unemployment benefits, while Employee B gets the standard 6 months.
- baddox 8y ago
  I’m not saying you’re wrong legally, but I don’t quite follow your argument. You say “between those two dates, the employee has the same expectation of employment” but then immediately follow it up by saying that the unemployment benefits should extend indefinitely outside of that date range. You may be right legally, I really couldn't say, but it makes perfect sense to me that the unemployment benefits would extend only to the announced separation date.

by baddox 8y ago

chrismeller 8y ago

Yeah, that's the way I read it. Though they didn't specify, I assumed they gave the 60 days notice because they had a new job that, for whatever reason, was slated to start on January 1st. I don't think I'd ever have given that much notice (unless it was for some reason legally required) for specifically this reason. Either way, even if I didn't have any new employment lined up, I would have expected to collect my remaining paychecks and then that would be that - no unemployment at all. Aside from a little extra cash (since the unemployment they did get wouldn't have been anywhere near the amount their paychecks would have been for) I'm also not really sure what the end goal here is... just put this crappy employer behind you and move on.

scott00 8y ago

Unemployment benefits are likely to be substantially less than wages. In Massachusetts, unemployment benefits are about 50% of wages, with a cap of $795 per week (which works out to an annualized rate of $41,340/year). So the employee is probably in worse financial shape than they expected to be. IMO, the issue here isn't wrongful termination, it's providing false information to the state. Firing someone because they intend to resign in the future is probably legal, but it doesn't change the fact that they were fired. It sounds like the employer reported that they resigned, which simply isn't true.

baddox 8y ago
There’s no question that unemployment benefits are worse for that employee than their full employment benefits, and that extended unemployment benefits are better for the employee than them ending on January 1. I just don’t think that’s a sufficient argument for saying that the employee is entitled to those things legally or ethically.
- scott00 8y ago
  From a legal standpoint, the relevant language is "no benefits shall be paid to an individual under this chapter for... the period of unemployment... after the individual has left work (1) voluntarily..."[1]. I hope we can agree the employee did not leave voluntarily. There is no statutory language I could find that makes the fact that the employee intended to leave at some point after the date of actual separation relevant to the eligibility for benefits. Ethically, the thing I have the biggest problem with is the employer characterizing the circumstances of the separation as anything other than a firing on November 1st. Effectively they are trying to say they fired the person on November 1st, then they rehired that person on January 1st, at which point they immediately resigned. I just don't think that's an accurate description of the circumstances. [1] Massachussetts General Law Chapter 151A, Section 25, preamble and paragraph e: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter151A/Section25 https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Ch...
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    It's also entirely possible that the company could have worked to retain the employee. This happens all the time. The only time it matters is if the employee quits on the spot or was given notice of termination. Notice of intent to quit is not quitting. I've in fact quit a company in Massachusetts before when I was younger because I was falsely accused of theft. They provided me unemployment which I refused on principle. Turned out the manager who accused me was the one stealing. Karma paid her a visit in that she was stabbed during a robbery on the shift she had to cover because of me leaving (she was fine with stitches). After this is when she was caught. So fun times all around.
- harimau777 8y ago
  Due to the difference between pay and unemployment benefits, the employee still has less money at the date when they would have resigned and they may have been counting on that money to see them through the job search. During the two months after they gave notice, the employee might have intended to send out applications in the evenings. Since there is often a significant lead time between submitting an application and hearing back, the employee may have been counting on the two months of employment to burn some of that wait. Hiring is probably also cyclic. For example, between Thanksgiving and New Years is probably not a very productive time to be looking for jobs. The employee may have been counting on the two months before their resignation date to get them through one of these slow periods.
lasereyes136 8y ago
The post said they were fired without cause. I don't know about Massachusetts but in right to work states, people can be fired without a reason or a notice period, and it is up to the person to prove there was a reason that is illegal.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  > and it is up to the person to prove there was a reason that is illegal. And the company has the money, legal team, and power. And the person has, well, less money, and no legal team, and low/no power. And that's why all layoffs and firings need to include why. There shouldn't be any of this without-reason dismissals.
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  In Massachusetts you automatically get unemployed benefits unless the employer files paperwork for termination due to cause. The de facto assumption is that the employee will receive unemployment benefits up until the date that those benefits are exhausted. The only way that this stopped was if the employer started that the employee quit or that they were terminated for cause, neither of which sounds true in this case as terminating someone for an intention to quit is not cause. Obviously IANAL but as far as I can tell the employee is entitled to unemployment benefits.

jawns 8y ago

I think the employee made a mistake by giving 60 days notice; generally, that is only called for in very senior-level positions. Beyond that, the employeee didn't have another job lined up. So (at least from the employer's point of view) it seems as if the employee intended to use those 60 days to find another job, and I think an employer could reasonably assume that they would not be putting in their all during that time, so best to cut the line. All that said, it's not fair for the fired employee to receive unemployment benefits only until the date on which they would have stopped working if they had not been fired. Unemployment assistance is a public benefit that people (generally) qualify for if they are fired without cause; it helps them get by until they are able to find another job. You can qualify for unemployment assistance even if your work has a defined end date. I have a buddy who works on film sets, so his jobs typically last 4-5 months. But even if the film is scheduled to wrap up filming in a week, he would still qualify for unemployment if he were let go, and not just for the single week he would have been working. The implicit understanding of giving notice is, "I intend to work for you until this date." But if the employer fires them prior to that date, it totally invalidates whatever notice was given. Keep in mind that date of notice and date of separation are different. Between those two dates, the employee has the same expectation of employment, and the public benefits associated with it, as any other employee. If you get fired prior to your date of departure, whether or not you have given your employer the courtesy of notice, then you should qualify for the same unemployment benefits as someone who has not given the courtesy of notice. Think about it. It would really suck if Employee A and Employee B both intend to stop working two weeks from now; Employee A is a jerk and plans to give no notice; Employee B is nice and gives two weeks' notice; both employees are fired without cause several days later; and Employee A gets at most 10 days' worth of unemployment benefits, while Employee B gets the standard 6 months.

baddox 8y ago
I’m not saying you’re wrong legally, but I don’t quite follow your argument. You say “between those two dates, the employee has the same expectation of employment” but then immediately follow it up by saying that the unemployment benefits should extend indefinitely outside of that date range. You may be right legally, I really couldn't say, but it makes perfect sense to me that the unemployment benefits would extend only to the announced separation date.