6 ms·

"In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the e

"In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal. "

tptacek 3y ago
That matters when employees have contracts promising termination only with cause. But these employees are likely all at-will; they can be fired for having the wrong hair cut.
- kube-system 3y ago
  Constructive dismissals aren’t necessarily illegal, they’re just not resignations. A “resignation” that is actually a constructive dismissal would usually qualify that employee for any legal benefits they’d receive as a fired employee, like unemployment.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- adastra22 3y ago
  This is unrelated to “with Cause” conditions in employment contracts. This is about qualifying for unemployment and other benefits.
- danaris 3y ago
  Constructive dismissal isn't about whether it's legal or not to do it. It is, however, relevant to things like unemployment benefits—my wife, for instance, had her job changed on her just as the lockdowns were beginning, to something she had already made it very clear she was adamantly unwilling to do (and this was a complete change in title, responsibilities, department, the whole works), and after she had been instrumental in some reports that were pretty critical of the administration and (indirectly) supportive of unionization. She quit, and had no trouble (at least, no more than usual) getting the state to agree she deserved unemployment.
- RollAHardSix 3y ago
  No, I live in an at-will state, you can absolutely file for constructive dismissal. And SHOULD. If you can do your job remotely, have been doing your job remotely, and the company wants to end that? Then the company absolutely needs to be challenged and burdened with showing proof as to why returning to the office is necessary when it does create an unreasonable burden on the employee. For anyone who says this isn't an unreasonable burden, what if you live in a different state? Or in a lower cost-of-living? Or have a home/family life built around a position working remotely that you have been functioning in perfectly fine for three, four, five plus years? In Physical Security if your position requires body armor, the company is legally admitting it's a dangerous life-threatening position & denying a request for body armor is a legal attestation that the job should not be considered dangerous in the course of day to day work. Much the same way, the company is now admitting that onsite work for the position is somehow more necessary then working remotely. Challenge these companies.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    If they won a case for constructive dismissal, what do you think they would win?
    - grayhatter 3y ago
      their self respect?
    - RollAHardSix 3y ago
      Unemployment benefits. Possibly a position retained remotely if it progresses to legal arbitration. But more importantly, precedent for other workers & the hit to unemployment insurance for the company. Obviously with Amazon's size its different but that unemployment insurance cost matters to most companies.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        Why would there be legal arbitration? They already have the right to terminate you without cause. At best, wouldn't you be "winning" the recognition that they're simply RIF'ing you?
hirundo 3y ago
I'm a remote worker who would quit before returning to the office. But even so I can't interpret a requirement to be non-remote as "a hostile work environment", "extraordinary", or "unreasonable". But yes, it does look more like a termination than a voluntary resignation.
- Majromax 3y ago
  > But even so I can't interpret a requirement to be non-remote as "a hostile work environment", "extraordinary", or "unreasonable". But yes, it does look more like a termination than a voluntary resignation. I think a unilateral change to the employment contract that substantially changes the character of the work (from fully remote to in-person) could fairly easily be described as 'unreasonable', just as if your employer decided to cut your salary in half. The fate of any potential case would probably come down to the reasonable expectations of the parties. If there was a common understanding that remote work was permanent, then a unilateral change would be unreasonable; if the remote work was time-limited, probationary, or a trial, then the change might be reasonable even if undesired.
  - Aurornis 3y ago
    > I think a unilateral change to the employment contract These employees do not have employment contracts. It sounds nit-picky if you’re unfamiliar with the law, but it’s very important that companies avoid giving the suggestion that there is an “employment contract” Regardless, this is a company-wide policy change, not an action against an individual. Companies close offices, shutter departments, and pull out of regions while giving employees to the opportunity to relocate all the time. This is well-trodden territory and it’s not constructive dismissal against an individual.
- adastra22 3y ago
  The actual threashold is “a meaningful change in your work requirements” and there is, I believe, plenty of case law to establish that this includes a significant change to your worksite location. If you live 5 min from your office, maybe you can’t use this excuse. But if you are committing 45+ min each way, or have since moved out of state…
Aurornis 3y ago
If they did this to a single employee without good reason, that employee might have a case. If they institute a company-wide policy and apply it by default to everyone, an individual could not argue that the company constructively dismissed them.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Case to sue for what? Constructive dismissal is legal

tptacek 3y ago

That matters when employees have contracts promising termination only with cause. But these employees are likely all at-will; they can be fired for having the wrong hair cut.

kube-system 3y ago
Constructive dismissals aren’t necessarily illegal, they’re just not resignations. A “resignation” that is actually a constructive dismissal would usually qualify that employee for any legal benefits they’d receive as a fired employee, like unemployment.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
adastra22 3y ago
This is unrelated to “with Cause” conditions in employment contracts. This is about qualifying for unemployment and other benefits.
danaris 3y ago
Constructive dismissal isn't about whether it's legal or not to do it. It is, however, relevant to things like unemployment benefits—my wife, for instance, had her job changed on her just as the lockdowns were beginning, to something she had already made it very clear she was adamantly unwilling to do (and this was a complete change in title, responsibilities, department, the whole works), and after she had been instrumental in some reports that were pretty critical of the administration and (indirectly) supportive of unionization. She quit, and had no trouble (at least, no more than usual) getting the state to agree she deserved unemployment.
RollAHardSix 3y ago
No, I live in an at-will state, you can absolutely file for constructive dismissal. And SHOULD. If you can do your job remotely, have been doing your job remotely, and the company wants to end that? Then the company absolutely needs to be challenged and burdened with showing proof as to why returning to the office is necessary when it does create an unreasonable burden on the employee. For anyone who says this isn't an unreasonable burden, what if you live in a different state? Or in a lower cost-of-living? Or have a home/family life built around a position working remotely that you have been functioning in perfectly fine for three, four, five plus years? In Physical Security if your position requires body armor, the company is legally admitting it's a dangerous life-threatening position & denying a request for body armor is a legal attestation that the job should not be considered dangerous in the course of day to day work. Much the same way, the company is now admitting that onsite work for the position is somehow more necessary then working remotely. Challenge these companies.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  If they won a case for constructive dismissal, what do you think they would win?
  - grayhatter 3y ago
    their self respect?
  - RollAHardSix 3y ago
    Unemployment benefits. Possibly a position retained remotely if it progresses to legal arbitration. But more importantly, precedent for other workers & the hit to unemployment insurance for the company. Obviously with Amazon's size its different but that unemployment insurance cost matters to most companies.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      Why would there be legal arbitration? They already have the right to terminate you without cause. At best, wouldn't you be "winning" the recognition that they're simply RIF'ing you?

hirundo 3y ago

I'm a remote worker who would quit before returning to the office. But even so I can't interpret a requirement to be non-remote as "a hostile work environment", "extraordinary", or "unreasonable". But yes, it does look more like a termination than a voluntary resignation.

Majromax 3y ago
> But even so I can't interpret a requirement to be non-remote as "a hostile work environment", "extraordinary", or "unreasonable". But yes, it does look more like a termination than a voluntary resignation. I think a unilateral change to the employment contract that substantially changes the character of the work (from fully remote to in-person) could fairly easily be described as 'unreasonable', just as if your employer decided to cut your salary in half. The fate of any potential case would probably come down to the reasonable expectations of the parties. If there was a common understanding that remote work was permanent, then a unilateral change would be unreasonable; if the remote work was time-limited, probationary, or a trial, then the change might be reasonable even if undesired.
- Aurornis 3y ago
  > I think a unilateral change to the employment contract These employees do not have employment contracts. It sounds nit-picky if you’re unfamiliar with the law, but it’s very important that companies avoid giving the suggestion that there is an “employment contract” Regardless, this is a company-wide policy change, not an action against an individual. Companies close offices, shutter departments, and pull out of regions while giving employees to the opportunity to relocate all the time. This is well-trodden territory and it’s not constructive dismissal against an individual.
adastra22 3y ago
The actual threashold is “a meaningful change in your work requirements” and there is, I believe, plenty of case law to establish that this includes a significant change to your worksite location. If you live 5 min from your office, maybe you can’t use this excuse. But if you are committing 45+ min each way, or have since moved out of state…

Aurornis 3y ago

If they did this to a single employee without good reason, that employee might have a case. If they institute a company-wide policy and apply it by default to everyone, an individual could not argue that the company constructively dismissed them.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Case to sue for what? Constructive dismissal is legal