Fired for False Cause

[Wishes64]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Pennsylvania

I realize that in the state of Pennsylvania, the relationship between and employee and an employer is "at will". However, if the employer fires the employee for a specific stated reason, isn't there a requirement that that reason be true? Someone close to me was fired for allegedly creating an e-mail chain, which was deemed as grounds for termination, without any investigation into the IT evidence. We are working to gather evidence (IP addresses etc) that this the former employee was not the one to create the e-mail; however, general consensus from lawyers seems to be that it doesn't matter whether the cited cause for termination was true or not, employers are free to make up reasons for termination, could this possibly true? I could understand a company "laying off" employees, but firing them and ruining their reputation - doesn't there need to be a basis of fact for that, especially when a slanderous lie is spreading like wildfire.

 

[TheGeekess]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Pennsylvania

I realize that in the state of Pennsylvania, the relationship between and employee and an employer is "at will". However, if the employer fires the employee for a specific stated reason, isn't there a requirement that that reason be true? Someone close to me was fired for allegedly creating an e-mail chain, which was deemed as grounds for termination, without any investigation into the IT evidence. We are working to gather evidence (IP addresses etc) that this the former employee was not the one to create the e-mail; however, general consensus from lawyers seems to be that it doesn't matter whether the cited cause for termination was true or not, employers are free to make up reasons for termination, could this possibly true? I could understand a company "laying off" employees, but firing them and ruining their reputation - doesn't there need to be a basis of fact for that, especially when a slanderous lie is spreading like wildfire.

Short answer: Yes.

 

[cbg]

if the employer fires the employee for a specific stated reason, isn't there a requirement that that reason be true? No, not at all.

general consensus from lawyers seems to be that it doesn't matter whether the cited cause for termination was true or not, employers are free to make up reasons for termination, could this possibly true? It not only could be true, it is true.

 

[commentator]

Your only recourse in most cases of the employer firing you for a completely bogus reason is to file for unemployment insurance. Unless the firing can be shown to be connected to your race, religious affiliation, gender, etc, those EEOC protected categories, they don't have to have a good reason to fire you and they don't have to have a true reason to fire you. They can just legally fire you. Just as you can quit for any reason.

But the recourse is that in this sort of situation, the company cannot stop you from filing for and being approved for unemployment benefits. They are obligated by federal law (God bless the Feds!) to pay these benefits into the state system for each employee they have on their payroll. In order to qualify for these benefits, you must file and you must have enough covered quarters of work for employers who pay into the system.

Then you must show that you are out of work through no fault of your own. If the employer fires you, they have the burden of proof to show that they had a good valid work related misconduct reason to terminate you. That you knew it was wrong, and did it anyway, after warnings, usually. That they can prove this in a believable manner. your word and their word are considered equally good in the unemployment process, they don't get special recognition because they are the employer or anything. The matter is adjudicated, and a decision is rendered about whether or not you are approved. Either party can appeal the decision, and another hearing is held, where the decision is either upheld or denied.

Why would a company elect to fire you for some bogus made up reason instead of giving you a "lack of work lay off"? Easy, it's because any time a person draws unemployment benefits from their company, their tax rates are increased. If they give you a simple lack of work separation, the fault is obviously theirs, and the claim is approved fairly quickly.

However, if they give you a "fired" separation notice, regardless of the validity of the reason why they fired you, there are a certain number of people who will just throw up their hands and not file for unemployment benefits. Or they will not pursue what it takes to get the claim approved. It's sort of like the shady insurance companies that deny all claims across the board on the first submission. A certain number of uninformed people will passively accept this without going forward and applying for benefits or appealing again and again as it needs to be done.

If you do file for unemployment insurance in this situation, you will likely be approved eventually, and if you keep certifying for the weeks after you file, you will eventually be back paid for the weeks of delay you have experienced. But don't expect the employer to have your best interests in mind in this situation, and don't believe that "they can't do this to me, can they?" because oh heck yes, they can, and they most certainly will. When principle meets profit, the most virtuous sounding employer will sometimes throw principles such as honesty and fairness to the wind in the name of profit.