3 ms·

> firing someone requires extensive documentation of actual wrongdoing In the US? Maybe to help avoid frivolous lawsuits, but barring having signed a contract

> firing someone requires extensive documentation of actual wrongdoing In the US? Maybe to help avoid frivolous lawsuits, but barring having signed a contract stating otherwise, you don't need any wrongdoing to terminate someone's employment.

voidlogic 13y ago
My understanding in most locales: Terminating an employee without cause is acceptable for at will employment, but it means you will be paying them unemployment. Firing is terminating an employee with just cause and means you don't have to pay unemployment. If this guys is letting people go because they don't fit into his super-culture, that is the former and not the latter.
- dangrossman 13y ago
  That's my understanding as well. I would assume if the termination reasons are as vague as this post, that those people he let go are eligible for unemployment.
notacoward 13y ago
I've actually been involved in the evidence-gathering process that would have led to firing someone - a peer, not a subordinate - if he hadn't taken the offer to quit first. It turns out that avoiding those frivolous lawsuits requires concrete and specific evidence of incompetence, insubordination, misappropriation of company resources, etc. We're talking actual emails, not remembered hallway conversations. Direct refusal to do as they're told, not grudging half-compliance. It's a lot harder than most people think. Maybe some companies don't do their diligence and manage to get away with it, but at most startups the investors are likely to demand a much more comprehensive paper trail for anything that might incur liability. "At will" doesn't provide total immunity to lawsuits. http://www.expertlaw.com/library/employment/at_will.html http://www.expertlaw.com/library/employment/at_will.html http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

voidlogic 13y ago

My understanding in most locales: Terminating an employee without cause is acceptable for at will employment, but it means you will be paying them unemployment. Firing is terminating an employee with just cause and means you don't have to pay unemployment. If this guys is letting people go because they don't fit into his super-culture, that is the former and not the latter.

dangrossman 13y ago
That's my understanding as well. I would assume if the termination reasons are as vague as this post, that those people he let go are eligible for unemployment.

notacoward 13y ago

I've actually been involved in the evidence-gathering process that would have led to firing someone - a peer, not a subordinate - if he hadn't taken the offer to quit first. It turns out that avoiding those frivolous lawsuits requires concrete and specific evidence of incompetence, insubordination, misappropriation of company resources, etc. We're talking actual emails, not remembered hallway conversations. Direct refusal to do as they're told, not grudging half-compliance. It's a lot harder than most people think. Maybe some companies don't do their diligence and manage to get away with it, but at most startups the investors are likely to demand a much more comprehensive paper trail for anything that might incur liability. "At will" doesn't provide total immunity to lawsuits. http://www.expertlaw.com/library/employment/at_will.html http://www.expertlaw.com/library/employment/at_will.html http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf