Fired after resigning!!!!!!!!!!

[theadam]

What is the name of your state? TX
Friday Feb 18 I gave my 2 week notice in a letter of resignation, it was accepted by my employer. I called off 'sick' Mon, Tue & today, Wed Feb 19. (I took these days to do the drug test, physical, orientation, for my new job) When I got home today I had a message on my machine from my current (soon to be ex) employer telling me 'don't worry about coming in any more'. Can this employer fire me after accepting my letter of resignation?

 

[cbg]

Yes, they can. Nothing in any Federal or state law requires them to allow you to work out your notice. And frankly, if I'd found out that an employee who had given their notice and then called in sick for three days so that they could do the orientation for their new job, I'd have done exactly the same thing as your employer.

You didn't ask this but I'll tell you anyway; they are not required to pay you for any time you didn't actually work. If you turned in your resignation last Friday and then took Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday off to do orientation and drug testing for your new job, the last day you'd get wages from me would be for last Friday.

BTW, Friday was February 14.

 

[theadam]

cbg, thank you for your reply. My curiousity is now aroused: if there is no state or federal law against firing someone after accepting their resignation why don't more employers do this. It would save paying accrued vacation time, health benefits...

I will not attempt to justify my actions, but I would like to give you some background information: I am a registered nurse with first assistant certification. I am qualified to open & close patients in surgery, do history & physicals prior to surgery, I don't want to overstate what I do but I am considered my surgeons right hand man. The first of this year I was informed that the clinic I work for was doing away with RNFA's. (there are 2 of us) Through no fault of mine the clinic supposedly lost money by billing insurance companies for my services using the code for a P.A. (something doesn't make sense) The surgeons raised a LOT of heck, the hospital came back with a plan to 'lease' us from the clinic for the same salary, same benefits. Two weeks after accepting the offer (no signed contract, my mistake) I was informed my vacation time would be reduced, I would no longer receive tuition reimbursement, & they were 'looking' at the other benefits. I tendered my resignation, & within the hour had another job.

Again, I am not attempting to justify my actions since then, I do want to make the point that there are two sides to every story. I would like to ask again: If there is no law against firing someone after they have tendered their resignation (they have NO proof I am not sick) why don't more employers do this?

 

[cbg]

Because it is not necessarily in the best interest of the company to do so. That depends upon the specific situation and the specific employee involved. Every company I have worked for have allowed employees to work out their notice, UNLESS the employee was in a sensitive position where the loyalties of the employee could be considered to be split; for example, a salesperson who is going to work for a competitor would have his notice accepted immediately, or, as you evidently prefer to word it, fired after giving notice. Reason: whose interests is the employee going to put first - the old company who will no longer be supplying a paycheck, or the new company, who will? An administrator, on the other hand, can ensure a smoother transition if they actually work out their notice rather than leaving immediately.

Also, whether you want to admit it or not, there are companies which are concerned about being fair to the employee. Just because they CAN let someone go immediately doesn't mean they WILL.

The purpose of giving notice is to ensure a smooth transition. Regardless of whether they can prove you were sick or not, if you aren't there, you can't be transitioning your position. Even if you were legitimately sick, what's the point of paying you for the extra two weeks if you aren't going to be there?

 

[baristaboss]

as an employer, if a person had handed me there two week notice and then did not show up for work it would definitely not be in my interest to keep someone who was not interested in giving it their all for those two weeks. you either continue working as you always have or your time is thorugh. just as it would be if an employee had not given notice. my experience has
been that good employees will uphold their responsibilities until the end. those that don't are a waste of time and i am under no obligation to work them those two weeks. lots of other people out there wanting jobs.

 

[klady]

Theadam, in retrospect it would have been better for you to turn in your notice, ASK for the days off and either use vacation. personal time, or take it without pay. If you being off presented a hardship to employer, maybe you could have rescheduled.

You were wrong to "call in sick" like that. You lied, plain and simple. It was unfair to employer and co-workers. It was you way of thumbing your nose at them, so employer understandably ended it. When possible it's best to leave on good terms. You don't KNOW if the new job is going to work out.

 

[Beth3]

I would also fire an employee who gave their two weeks notice and then called in sick the following three days if I didn't believe the employee was really ill. Your employer wasn't stupid - they could figure out what whas going on - and they had every right to fire you. Don't expect a favorable reference from this ex-employer in the future.