• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Multimple reasons for being fired after a stelalr evaluation

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

keithck73

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Connecticut

In July 2012 my wife received a great performance review and a 20% raise. 3 weeks later she was let go because the company was having financial difficulty.

Last week the owner, who wasn't at the firing, told me that she was let go because she didn't have an are of expertise they needed.

Legally speaking, does she have anything to pursue here against her former employer?
 


Antigone*

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Connecticut

In July 2012 my wife received a great performance review and a 20% raise. 3 weeks later she was let go because the company was having financial difficulty.

Last week the owner, who wasn't at the firing, told me that she was let go because she didn't have an are of expertise they needed.

Legally speaking, does she have anything to pursue here against her former employer?
None whatsoever.:cool:

She should, however file for unemployment.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
The two reasons are not even necessarily mutually exclusive. If the company is having financial difficulties and they needed to select someone, it's possible that she was selected because she did not have the area of expertise that they needed. "We're having financial difficulties" is only a partial answer in any case. Once they've determined that they have to let someone go, they don't draw names out of a hat - they pick the people they do for a reason. "She doesn't have the area of expertise we're going to need" could well be the specific reason she, instead of someone else, was chosen once the "financial difficulty" was determined.

In any case, this does not come even remotely close to giving her a case to do anything but file for unemployment.
 

commentator

Senior Member
That they let her go through no fault of her own, citing the company's financial situation, was the nicest and most aboveboard thing they could have done for her. She was immediately eligible for unemployment insurance until she finds another job, and the company was not, in any way, mandated to keep her if they could not do so in their own best interests.

If they had really "fired" her, indicating that she lacked skills they needed for the job, or that she was somehow incompetent, or somehow was being terminated due to her own behavior, that would have been a more ugly kettle of fish. It might've looked bad to future employers, where a "let go due to the company having financial difficulties" doesn't sound bad at all in this economy.

And in order to receive unemployment benefits she would've had to file, and there would have been a lengthy appeals process before they could or could not have shown that she was terminated for a misconduct reason. So you all were definitely fortunate it went so well. That good evaluation may stand her in good stead in her next job, she can always speak of it proudly. Employers are not strictly mandated to tell you every and most exactly the reasons why they let you go, or let you go rather than someone else.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Just to further clarify:

When a Reduction in Force is indicated for financial reasons, it does not necessarily reduce the workload. Rather it means that the same amount of work has to be managed by fewer employees.

If Sally is a five star employee, but can only do tasks A, B and C, whereas Jackie is only a three star employee but can do tasks A, B, C, D and E, it would make the most sense to RIF Sally and retain Jackie.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top