3 ms·

[IANAL] Technically, there was no fraud. They made a job offer, he accepted, and they (most likely) properly compensated him within the bounds of the offer.

[IANAL] Technically, there was no fraud. They made a job offer, he accepted, and they (most likely) properly compensated him within the bounds of the offer. So, in terms of that specific business transaction, there was no intentional deception made for personal/business gain (they made good on the job offer), or to damage a specific individual (they paid him according to the employment contract). Employment being at-will in most of the US, Seagate was completely within their rights to let him go anytime they wanted, for any reason. There's no case, there. Seagate was not playing fair, but they were still within the bounds of the law. However, the actual intent of creating the job in the first place was done under false pretenses, and MN has a specific (albeit old and obscure) law against that.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
> Technically, there was no fraud. They made a job offer, he accepted, and they (most likely) properly compensated him within the bounds of the offer. Without having seen the job offer, or knowing what exactly he did for them, we can't really say, can we.
- tptacek 15y ago
  No, we can't, which is his point. The parent commenter is simply observing that "fraud" is a harder case to make than a specific violation of a statute narrowly tailored to exactly this guy's case. Given the obscure statute which won this guy his judgement, it seems reasonable to assume he had better legal representation than is available on an HN thread.
kenjackson 15y ago
Actually the actual law broken was not the creation of the job, but the inducement w/o due disclosure to the applicant: "181.64 FALSE STATEMENTS AS INDUCEMENT TO ENTERING EMPLOYMENT. It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, company, corporation, association, or organization of any kind, doing business in this state, directly or through any agent or attorney, to induce, influence, persuade, or engage any person to change from one place to another in this state, or to change from any place in any state, territory, or country to any place in this state, to work in any branch of labor through or by means of knowingly false representations, whether spoken, written, or advertised in printed form, concerning the kind or character of such work, the compensation therefor, the sanitary conditions relating to or surrounding it, or failure to state in any advertisement, proposal, or contract for the employment that there is a strike or lockout at the place of the proposed employment, when in fact such strike or lockout then actually exists in such employment at such place. Any such unlawful acts shall be deemed a false advertisement or misrepresentation for the purposes of this section and section 181.65." https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=181.64 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=181.64 Basically you can't say, "Here's a great job and we have huge plans for your career" -- knowing that you plan to fire him in 9 months.
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>Technically, there was no fraud. // FWIW I didn't look at the specifics of this case I was merely responding to the parent comment which implied that there had been a fraud. My query was with the suggestion that such fraud would only be unlawful/illegal if there was specific statute against fraudulently engaging an employee and that if there were not then such frauds would be of null legal consequence for the perpetrators.

pavel_lishin 15y ago

> Technically, there was no fraud. They made a job offer, he accepted, and they (most likely) properly compensated him within the bounds of the offer. Without having seen the job offer, or knowing what exactly he did for them, we can't really say, can we.

tptacek 15y ago
No, we can't, which is his point. The parent commenter is simply observing that "fraud" is a harder case to make than a specific violation of a statute narrowly tailored to exactly this guy's case. Given the obscure statute which won this guy his judgement, it seems reasonable to assume he had better legal representation than is available on an HN thread.

kenjackson 15y ago

Actually the actual law broken was not the creation of the job, but the inducement w/o due disclosure to the applicant: "181.64 FALSE STATEMENTS AS INDUCEMENT TO ENTERING EMPLOYMENT. It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, company, corporation, association, or organization of any kind, doing business in this state, directly or through any agent or attorney, to induce, influence, persuade, or engage any person to change from one place to another in this state, or to change from any place in any state, territory, or country to any place in this state, to work in any branch of labor through or by means of knowingly false representations, whether spoken, written, or advertised in printed form, concerning the kind or character of such work, the compensation therefor, the sanitary conditions relating to or surrounding it, or failure to state in any advertisement, proposal, or contract for the employment that there is a strike or lockout at the place of the proposed employment, when in fact such strike or lockout then actually exists in such employment at such place. Any such unlawful acts shall be deemed a false advertisement or misrepresentation for the purposes of this section and section 181.65." https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=181.64 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=181.64 Basically you can't say, "Here's a great job and we have huge plans for your career" -- knowing that you plan to fire him in 9 months.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago

>Technically, there was no fraud. // FWIW I didn't look at the specifics of this case I was merely responding to the parent comment which implied that there had been a fraud. My query was with the suggestion that such fraud would only be unlawful/illegal if there was specific statute against fraudulently engaging an employee and that if there were not then such frauds would be of null legal consequence for the perpetrators.