Is this considered wrongful termination?

[Jayjet]

I am in Florida.

I was fired from my job of 2 years because of tardiness. The manager (A) who fired me claimed I had 6 tardy's since April which caused me to be fired. Here's my dilemma: The day before, I spoke with my store manager (B) asking him where I stood in terms of attendance since I did miss one day and B told me he would have another manager do it (C). That night, I needed A to fix my schedule (after waiting a week..when C worked she ignored my request) so I sat with her and she changed it to normal. Then at the end of the night A calls me in and tells me C emailed her with my record and that I'm fired. When I asked her (and later B) why they would wait so long to coach me she said she could not answer. B said they have too many employees to keep up with. I also asked her why would she change my schedule the same night and she simply did not answer me. Is this retaliatory? Because I went over her head? And how credible were those tardies after such a long period of time? My job has a 3 strike rule with 3 tardies = 1 absence. 3 unexcused absences = 1 coaching. I was on my last strike that takes 1 year to be removed.

 

[Zigner]

There was nothing unlawful about your termination as you explained it.

 

[Antigone*]

I am in Florida.

I was fired from my job of 2 years because of tardiness. The manager (A) who fired me claimed I had 6 tardy's since April which caused me to be fired. Here's my dilemma: The day before, I spoke with my store manager (B) asking him where I stood in terms of attendance since I did miss one day and B told me he would have another manager do it (C). That night, I needed A to fix my schedule (after waiting a week..when C worked she ignored my request) so I sat with her and she changed it to normal. Then at the end of the night A calls me in and tells me C emailed her with my record and that I'm fired. When I asked her (and later B) why they would wait so long to coach me she said she could not answer. B said they have too many employees to keep up with. I also asked her why would she change my schedule the same night and she simply did not answer me. Is this retaliatory? Because I went over her head? And how credible were those tardies after such a long period of time? My job has a 3 strike rule with 3 tardies = 1 absence. 3 unexcused absences = 1 coaching. I was on my last strike that takes 1 year to be removed.

This is definitely NOT considered wrongful termination. Learn to get to work on time and NOT to be low hanging fruit.

 

[sandyclaus]

I am in Florida.

I was fired from my job of 2 years because of tardiness. The manager (A) who fired me claimed I had 6 tardy's since April which caused me to be fired. Here's my dilemma: The day before, I spoke with my store manager (B) asking him where I stood in terms of attendance since I did miss one day and B told me he would have another manager do it (C). That night, I needed A to fix my schedule (after waiting a week..when C worked she ignored my request) so I sat with her and she changed it to normal. Then at the end of the night A calls me in and tells me C emailed her with my record and that I'm fired. When I asked her (and later B) why they would wait so long to coach me she said she could not answer. B said they have too many employees to keep up with. I also asked her why would she change my schedule the same night and she simply did not answer me. Is this retaliatory? Because I went over her head? And how credible were those tardies after such a long period of time? My job has a 3 strike rule with 3 tardies = 1 absence. 3 unexcused absences = 1 coaching. I was on my last strike that takes 1 year to be removed.

You were terminated because of misconduct (excessive tardiness). How exactly is that wrongful?

File for unemployment.

 

[cbg]

This is neither a wrongful termination nor illegal retaliation. "Retaliatory" is the new buzzword for something that everyone thinks is always illegal and actually is only illegal in a very small, very limited set of circumstances. My signature line will tell you why it is not a wrongful term.

 

[commentator]

Yes, usually tardiness is a "low hanging frut" type situation. It's very easy to have a policy, and fire someone on the spot for it. And it will be considered misconduct and it will be something that will probably not be approvable for unemployment benefits if you are fired immediately. However, in this situation, it sounds as if they actually looked at your record and realized they should have fired you here while back. And then they did. So really, you had no warning, no chance to change your behavior. THey were actually allowing you to work on, without any idea you were about to be fired.

This was not illegal, firing you right then wasn't a wrong thing for them to do to you in Florida, which is certainly an "at will" state. But the circumstances make it such that you should certainly file for unemployment insurance benefits while you are looking for another job. Explain how you apparently had accumulated the points to be fired and had not been fired, and then when someone looked at your record later you were fired, not immediately after an incident of tardiness had actually occurred.

 

[DaffyDuck]

Total newb here but I don't get illegal termination, so I'm just curious. I thought an employer's policy was basically a contract. So if they have some kind of 3-strike rule, x amount of tardies = 1 absent etc, then they are taking away from themselves the right to fire the person (at least for tardies/absenses). It's like they said "Ok, look we know people are late, so we won't fire you for it UNLESS you cross a threshold", but then they fired him for it even though he did not cross the threshold--the threshold that THEY established? They agreed to something (a certain threshold) and then they went back on it?

edit: the strike count was not clear. Did he in fact get 3 strikes?

 

[cbg]

I thought an employer's policy was basically a contract. It's not. It can be written in such a way that it becomes a contract, but about 99.9% of them are not.

 

[DaffyDuck]

I thought an employer's policy was basically a contract. It's not. It can be written in such a way that it becomes a contract, but about 99.9% of them are not.

"Implied employment contracts are most often found when an employer's personnel policies or handbooks indicate that an employee will not be fired except for good cause or specify a process for firing. If the employer fires the employee in violation of an implied employment contract, the employer may be found liable for breach of contract." WIkipedia

Yah, I just wikipediad you. Case law on this would be very interesting.

 

[Zigner]

"Implied employment contracts are most often found when an employer's personnel policies or handbooks indicate that an employee will not be fired except for good cause or specify a process for firing. If the employer fires the employee in violation of an implied employment contract, the employer may be found liable for breach of contract." WIkipedia

Yah, I just wikipediad you. Case law on this would be very interesting.

Let's expand on your selective pasting:

Thirty-seven U.S. states (and the District of Columbia) also recognize an implied contract as an exception to at-will employment.[18] Under the implied contract exception, an employer may not fire an employee "when an implied contract is formed between an employer and employee, even though no express, written instrument regarding the employment relationship exists."[18] Proving the terms of an implied contract is often difficult, and the burden of proof is on the fired employee. Implied employment contracts are most often found when an employer's personnel policies or handbooks indicate that an employee will not be fired except for good cause or specify a process for firing. If the employer fires the employee in violation of an implied employment contract, the employer may be found liable for breach of contract.

 

[DaffyDuck]

So it sounds like the contract should be somewhat? easy to prove? They had policies? Handbook maybe?

 

[Zigner]

So it sounds like the contract should be somewhat? easy to prove? They had policies? Handbook maybe?

Since we don't have access to the handbook/policies, there is no way we can do anything other than guess. From my experience, most companies that have handbooks are smart enough to have it reviewed by an attorney. Most companies that have handbooks are careful to avoid even the appearance of the creation of any sort of contract by the mere presence of a handbook.

 

[DaffyDuck]

^Point well taken.

Either way Jayjet, you got nothin' to lose baby! Give it a shot, that's what I say man.

Oh and someone posted something about not qualifying for unemployment, again, nothing to lose, go for it. (Actually, I read somewhere that unless you cause harm, like stealing or giving trade secrets or something, then you still qualify for unemployment, so give it a shot.

Good luck Jayjet.

 

[Silverplum]

The duckyboy is drawn to threads not his.



Ignore his moronicity, please.

 

[Zigner]

...unless you cause harm, like stealing or giving trade secrets or something, then you still qualify for unemployment...

And you were doing so well until you got to that (incorrect) statement.