Impact of former employer falisfying records

[1720a519]

My former employer is located in California. I live and work remotely in Illinois.

My former employer classified my separation as "Unsatisfactory performance" to the unemployment office. During my multi-year tenure I never received a single written or even verbal concern about my performance. I did receive regular praise, most recently a month before my departure from my immediate manager who expressed how satisfied he was with my work. My separation letter specifically states the elimination of my role due to the changing needs of the business, and the unemployment office has asked me to for a copy to this letter as it is inconsistent with their claim.

My question is not about my eligibility for unemployment benefits, but rather the impact to my job search, what their motivation would be and what I should do about it.

1) Could a future employer, as part of their screening process, find out my former employer cited unsatisfactory performance? Is the UE system accessible to future employees or part of background checks.
2) What motivation would an employer have to incorrectly list unsatisfactory performance as opposed to just a layoff due due to the companies financial situation.
3) What would be the impact to my former employer and me of the unemployment office's desire to investigate this discrepancy? Is my separation letter (stating the elimination of "my role" due to the changing needs of the business, and the absence of any performance concern documentation, likely to be sufficient to have this record changing? Are there any negative implications I might not be thinking of?

Added comment: One additional point- my former employer is not disputing my Unemployment eligibility. They just dispute the actual date of my termination, which triggered an interview and how I happened to learn they classified as performance related. This makes the question of their motivation even more confusing for me.

I am disappointed an employer I served faithfully for many years, even through difficult times, has acted in this matter. I appreciate your feedback.

 

[LdiJ]

My former employer is located in California. I live and work remotely in Illinois.

My former employer classified my separation as "Unsatisfactory performance" to the unemployment office. During my multi-year tenure I never received a single written or even verbal concern about my performance. I did receive regular praise, most recently a month before my departure from my immediate manager who expressed how satisfied he was with my work. My separation letter specifically states the elimination of my role due to the changing needs of the business, and the unemployment office has asked me to for a copy to this letter as it is inconsistent with their claim.

My question is not about my eligibility for unemployment benefits, but rather the impact to my job search, what their motivation would be and what I should do about it.

1) Could a future employer, as part of their screening process, find out my previous employer stated my performance was unsatisfactory? I don't know if the unemployment system is accessible to future employees or part of background checks.

No, its not something that would be available to a potential employer

2) What motivation would an employer have to incorrectly list unsatisfactory performance as opposed to just a layoff due due to the companies financial situation.

Their unemployment tax rate depends entirely on the number of claims that are paid out of their experience account. Therefore employers are VERY financially motivated to try to get unemployment claims denied.

3) What would be the impact to my former employer and me of the unemployment office's desire to investigate this discrepancy? Is my separation letter (stating the elimination of "my role" due to the changing needs of the business, and the absence of any performance concern documentation, likely to be sufficient to have this record changing? Are there any negative implications I might not be thinking of?

The negative for your employer is that if the investigation rules in your favor there will be an unemployment claim against their experience account. The negative for you if the investigation rules in your employers favor is that you will not end up getting unemployment. I think its highly likely you will win this one.

I am disappointed an employer I served faithfully for many years, even through difficult times, has acted in this matter. I appreciate your feedback.

Unfortunately some employers automatically do it, no matter how good the previous employee was. Again, they have a serious financial motivation.

Just to give you an example...lets say that a couple has an annual payroll of $250.000. If they have several years with no unemployment claims against them their state unemployment tax rate might be as little as .25% (one quarter of 1%) or $625.00 a year. If they have lots of claims against them, their rate might be as high as 7 or 8% per year (depending on the state) or $20,000 a year. Plus, there is federal unemployment tax on top of that. So, you can see how much of a difference the number of successful claims can make.

 

[1720a519]

Is there a consequence for getting caught?

Unfortunately some employers automatically do it, no matter how good the previous employee was. Again, they have a serious financial motivation.

Just to give you an example...lets say that a couple has an annual payroll of $250.000. If they have several years with no unemployment claims against them their state unemployment tax rate might be as little as .25% (one quarter of 1%) or $625.00 a year. If they have lots of claims against them, their rate might be as high as 7 or 8% per year (depending on the state) or $20,000 a year. Plus, there is federal unemployment tax on top of that. So, you can see how much of a difference the number of successful claims can make.

So the motivation is high to falsify the reason, but is there a downside or consequence to a company if it is determined they have not been truthful? I found it interesting the Unemployment office case manager asked me to provide this letter, even though my eligibility was not in dispute and she was planning to close out the case until this discrepancy came up.

 

[TheGeekess]

So the motivation is high to falsify the reason, but is there a downside or consequence to a company if it is determined they have not been truthful? I found it interesting the Unemployment office case manager asked me to provide this letter, even though my eligibility was not in dispute and she was planning to close out the case until this discrepancy came up.

Yes. Their unemployment tax rates could go up if there are enough approved claims against their account.

 

[1720a519]

Yes. Their unemployment tax rates could go up if there are enough approved claims against their account.

Interesting that the only consequence to a company fabricating records is having to pay into the unemployment system the higher rate they should already be paying, with no disincentive like a penalty for fraud. An individual falsifying tax documents wouldn't get off that easy.

If that's they way they want to run their business so be it. What's most important to me is to have my record show it was a layoff which was not performance based for my own piece of mind, and I am confident I will achieve that.

 

[Zigner]

What's most important to me is to have my record show it was a layoff which was not performance based for my own piece of mind, and I am confident I will achieve that.

You aren't going to be forcing them to change their records. You lay-off could very well be considered performance related, but still not rise to the level that would cause the state to deny you UI benefits.

 

[ecmst12]

Poor performance is NOT a reason to deny unemployment benefits unless the employer can prove that it was willful. So claiming poor performance is actually not going to help them at all.

 

[commentator]

As someone who collected these taxes, believe me, the employer in many cases just does it. They think it's financially prudent or something. And for some reason they have this misconception that "performance issues" is a good way to keep people from being approved for benefits. But it really isn't. In fact, it is one of the least likely things to disqualify you from being approved for benefits.

In order to keep you from drawing benefits, they must show that they had a valid MISCONDUCT reason to terminate you. In performance issues, if you showed up and did the best you could, which you apparently did for several years here, then duh, your performance couldn't have been too bad, could it have? And if they say you didn't do the job to their satisfaction, they will be asked, "What disciplinary actions had been taken about this?" "Did the employee have awareness that his performance was not up to par? Was he given warnings and opportunities to change his behavior?" If you simply couldn't meet their expectations, but you did your best, that is not considered misconduct.

Don't take it to heart. You are very likely going to be approved for benefits, despite the tacky swing at you the employer took as you went out the door.
As it has been pointed out the employer has a financial interest in keeping you from drawing benefits. Tacky and dishonest to lie to the unemployment system about your reason for being terminated, but they do it all the time. All you have to say is "I always did my job to the very best of my abilities." And that's the truth, right?

Concerning truthfulness: The unemployment system absolutely works under the assumption that either or both of you, both you and the employer, in providing information to the unemployment office may be lying. They work and make decisions based upon which of the parties is MOST BELIEVABLE. If there is documentation, proof, eyewitnesses, whatever, just the way it is presented, it all is compiled to the best of the adjudicator's ability, and then a decision is made. There is an appeal process after the initial decision.

Think about it, if you are fired, and they ask you why, and they ask the employer why, which is standard operating procedure, and you and the employer disagree about the reason, somebody's probably lying, right? But can you imagine the size of the enforcement and complications of the issue that would ensue if they prosecuted or fined every single person who was shown to have lied about an unemployment issue? There'd have to be a huge enforcement division, a legal aspect, because you know people would file civil complaints, it gets endless. Unemployment insurance is a closed state system, it is NOT the same as what goes on between you and the U.S. government regarding your federal income taxes.

Absolutely no other employer, in fact no one can obtain information about your unemployment claim except you(or your legal representative with your permission) or the employer who is the particular employer you are filing against. No one else will know the reason that was given by your employer when you filed your claim, unless you tell them.

File your claim, be sure to certify for each week that you are out of work whether or not the claim has been approved, do an appeal if necessary, and move on. Do not worry about what this employer has done.

A friend of mine worked for a "big box employer." There was common knowledge that there was a layoff coming. The employer, in terms of the little old local manager gleefully informed each of the separated employees that they were being terminated for "performance issues." Despite many years of satisfactory work. Told them that they would NOT be eligible for unemployment insurance, it would do them no good to even bother to sign up. He actually thought he was being smart, working for the good of the company. Someone in our department called company headquarters and complained about him. It's not nice to discourage workers from filing claims. Didn't do the boy much good, his assumed smartness, really. But the sad thing is some of the people didn't believe he'd lie to them, didn't file claims until they were contacted and encouraged to do so.

 

[Ladyback1]

Or it could as simple as the UI office sent a form letter with check boxes on why you were let go, and the only check box that even remotely fit the situation was "unsatisfactory performance". Or whoever filled out the form, had no clue what the real reason was, or the person filling out the form checked the incorrect box....

I'm as paranoid as the next person about this kind of stuff...but sometimes, there is a reasonable explanation.

 

[cbg]

I've never had employees in Illinois so I don't have any idea what the form looks like there, but my state is one of the ones with check boxes. And there isn't even an Other (or at least there didn't used to be - maybe they've changed it, I don't know). I know I've had to check boxes that didn't entirely accurately reflect what happened, just because it was the closest option.

It does happen. In my case, when that happened I would send along an explanation, but not all employers do that.

 

[commentator]

Though a separation notice might, I strongly doubt that a follow up questionnaire from U.I. requesting information about the reason for a claimant's separation would have a simple check box for "unsatisfactory performance." As I said, this is one that employers all seem to love, a card they think they can play and be justified.

But no one in the unemployment system is fond of that general statement at all. Our agency had a full page questionnaire for 'unsatisfactory performance' because the simple statement was never something we could take and just go with it. If it was unsatisfactory performance, what did the employee not do in a satisfactory manner? Had there been warnings? Were there standards? Did the employee know the performance was substandard? Had there ever been a time when the employee did perform adequately? etc., etc.

I'd say this was deliberate. Instead of a simple lack of work, which would have resulted in a clean claim, no discussion, no follow up, they chose to give that final ding for some reason.

 

[1720a519]

Update and case closed

Yesterday I provided with case worker with my separation letter, which stated "my role" was terminated, because of the "evolving needs of the business." She went back to my former employer stating I was disputing the separation was unsatisfactory, and they insist that it was. The case worker said she consulted their legal and because the letter said I was "terminated" they are sticking with it being performance based. They would not be able to provide a single email or document stating a performance issue with me if requested as they don't exist, but I can understand if the case worker doesn't feel like investing much time into this as they have not contested my ability to receive UE (which I have been receiving for a month). So, technically there is no monetary impact to me. She also validated the other postings that no future employer could ever find out about this classification which was my primary concern. It's just so disappointing they outright lie, even when I disputed the reason, just to save a couple dollars. I asked the case worker why they would do this because they didn't contest my receiving UE benefits, and she said something about it coming out of a different pool.

What a disgrace, but it's validation I am better off not being a part of that organization.

 

[1720a519]

deliberate

Though a separation notice might, I strongly doubt that a follow up questionnaire from U.I. requesting information about the reason for a claimant's separation would have a simple check box for "unsatisfactory performance." As I said, this is one that employers all seem to love, a card they think they can play and be justified.

But no one in the unemployment system is fond of that general statement at all. Our agency had a full page questionnaire for 'unsatisfactory performance' because the simple statement was never something we could take and just go with it. If it was unsatisfactory performance, what did the employee not do in a satisfactory manner? Had there been warnings? Were there standards? Did the employee know the performance was substandard? Had there ever been a time when the employee did perform adequately? etc., etc.

I'd say this was deliberate. Instead of a simple lack of work, which would have resulted in a clean claim, no discussion, no follow up, they chose to give that final ding for some reason.

You are correct, it was deliverable. Since I protested the reason they went back to the company today, and they insist I was separated due to performance. Lucky for them this was via phone/fax/email, since there is no way they could say this with a straight face in person.