need advice

[clshep]

What is the name of your state? Massachusetts
I just have a question regarding my termination from a job I held for 4 months. I recently completed an extensive training program in the medical field and was receiving a paycheck while doing it. I was recently terminated by my manager who acted on something she allegedly heard from one of my co-workers. I was not told what was said or what the situation was surrounding this "incident". I stated that I had a right to know who was making these comments but my manager skirted around the issue and never gave me an answer. I am in the process of writing to the CEO and Director of Education regarding this unfair treatment and termination. Any advice as to what I should say and what my rights are as far as what goes into my file. What can they disclose to a prospective employer calling for an employment check? Thanks for any input.

 

[cbg]

Nothing in your post suggests that you were illegally terminated. Unfair, possibly. Illegally, not on the basis of the info you provided.

You are incorrect that the law gives you the right to know who said what. They have no legal obligation to tell you, and depending on the nature of the situation it may even be unwise for them to tell you. However, in Massachusetts you have the right to view your personnel file and while you have no say as to what goes into it, you have the right to insert a rebuttal to any information with which you do not agree. IF the information is in your file (which it may or may not be) that will be the only way for you to access it.

They can tell a prospective employer anything that is true, anything they honestly believe to be true, and/or anything that represents their honest opinion.

 

[Tony31]

Wrongful term

Keep in mind that most employment is at-will. You or the employer can terminate for any reason or no reason. An employer cannot terminate for anything that violates public policy, such as reporting the company commiting a crime, or for you taking time of to serve on a jury, etc.
You can also show that an at-will contract was changed to one to extend to a certain time, if thats the case. The only way you're going to see these statements is to have the cause of action to get it into a court and subpoena the documents or the person as a witness.
Here are some points to consider, depending on the details of your particular situation.
Firing an at-will employee for bad cause violates rights guaranteed to the employee by law and is tortious.
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem. Hosp. 710 P.2d 1025, 1026 (1985).
Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance. Restatement(second) of Contracts § 205.

 

[cbg]

Firing an at-will employee for bad cause violates rights guaranteed to the employee by law

Oh really? And what rights would those be?

 

[Tony31]

Firing an at-will employee for bad cause violates rights guaranteed to the employee by law

Oh really? And what rights would those be?

The right not to engage in illegal activity for the emnployer:
Tameny v Atlantic Richfield 27 Cal.3d 167

The right not to commit perjury for employer:
Peterman v Intern Brotherhood of Teamsters 174 Cal.App.2d 184

The right to unionize:
Glenn v Clearman's Golden Cock Inn 192 Cal.App.2d 793

Right to serve on a jury:
Nees v Hocks 536 P.2d 512

Right to file workers comp:
Framton v. Central indiana Gas Corp. 297 N.E.2d 425

Right to report comany law violations:
Harless v First Nat Bank in Fairmont 246 S.E2d 270

Right to not violate state law:
Wagenseller v Scottsdale Mem. Hosp. 710 P.2d 1025.

Right to inform police of employee criminal violation:
Palmateer v Intern Harvester Co. 421 N.E.2d 876

I could keep going but you cannot be terminated for something that violates public policy. Termination motivated by bad faith or retaliation is not in the best interest of the public good and constitutes a breach of contract. Monge v Beebe Rubber Co.316 A.2d 549 The key to an employees claim is the proper definition of a public policy that has been violated by the employer.
Firing for bad cause, one against public policy articulated by constitutional, statutory, or decisional law, is not a right inherent in the at-will contract A.Corbin Contracts 7; 6a Such a termination violates rights guaranteed by law and is tortios.

 

[pattytx]

So if you're such a case law expert, Tony 31, why are you even here asking this question?

Oh, and BTW, it's very tacky to rate your own thread. And I'm positive you were the one who did it. I know the responder here very well, and I'm sure she didn't do it. It doesn't even rate half a star.

If I accused you of something you didn't do, are you gonna sue me now?

 

[cbg]

Yes, you cannot be terminated for something that violates public policy. That is true.

However, that's a far cry from what you first said.

And who determines what's bad cause?

 

[Tony31]

So if you're such a case law expert, Tony 31, why are you even here asking this question?

Oh, and BTW, it's very tacky to rate your own thread. And I'm positive you were the one who did it. I know the responder here very well, and I'm sure she didn't do it. It doesn't even rate half a star.

If I accused you of something you didn't do, are you gonna sue me now?

Well, Patty, first of all I never asked a question. If you look at the top, its a person from Massachusets I answered, and I thought this was a site where folk could come and get some advise, so I offer what little I know. Looking up caselaw doesnt take an expert lawyer.
Secondly, I dont know how to rate a thread, especially one I didnt create. I'm answering somebody else's question.
I'll assume your last question to be sarcastic

 

[Tony31]

Yes, you cannot be terminated for something that violates public policy. That is true.

However, that's a far cry from what you first said.

And who determines what's bad cause?

Its no different than what I first said. What I did is to cite a case:
Firing an at-will employee for bad cause violates rights guaranteed to the employee by law and is tortious.
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem. Hosp. 710 P.2d 1025, 1026 (1985).

The court determines what bad cause is. For example in Roberson v WalMart Stores, Supr Crt Arizona 1CA-CV 00-0555
a pharmacist argued that the employee handbook constituted an agreement that a process would be followed first, before he would be terminated. He initially won the case, but on appeal WalMart won the appeal. The court ruled that the termination did not violate public policy or breach of contract.
In Logan v. Forever Living Products, also in Arizona, Employeees were fired after refusing to sell their property to their employer at a rate well below market value. The court ruled a violation of public policy.

To quote Wagenseller:
A survey of cases involving retaliatory discharge shows that a matter must strike at the heart of a citizen's social rights, duties, and responsibilities before the tort will be allowed.
So firing for bad cause would be to fire an employee because that employee did something he had a social right, duty, or responsibilty to perform.
Now what constitutes public policy? Public policy is to be found in a states constitution, statutes (laws), or where those are silent, in its judicial decisions.

 

[cbg]

Your initial statement that I highlightly, wrongly suggests that any time an employee disagrees with a cause of termination, it AUTOMATICALLY gives them a legal cause of action, which is not true.

 

[Tony31]

Your initial statement that I highlightly, wrongly suggests that any time an employee disagrees with a cause of termination, it AUTOMATICALLY gives them a legal cause of action, which is not true.

Ok, the statement you highlighted was:

Firing an at-will employee for bad cause violates rights guaranteed to the employee by law
Oh really? And what rights would those be?

Look closely as what was said:
Firing an at-will employee for bad cause violates rights guaranteed to the employee by law

Now that statement is a cut-&-paste from the case itself. This is the ruling of the Supreme Court of Arizona and is published in the Federal Reporter 2nd series. Since it has been published in the federal reporter, it is now binding on every court in the United States. Go to a law library. The reporter series is published as a set of books. Find FEDERAL REPORTER 2nd SERIES, then find book number 710 and read beginning at page 1025. This case has not been depublished, nor overrulled, so it is citeable. You can also use Westlaw Key Number lookup using 30(1.5) and I'm quoting....now I'm quoting the Supreme Court of Arizona, again, published in the Federal Reporter:
"Employer may fire at-will employee for good cause or for no cause, but employer may not fire for bad cause, that is, that which violates public policy".

 

[Tony31]

>> Your initial statement that I highlightly, wrongly suggests that any time an employee disagrees with a cause of termination, it AUTOMATICALLY gives them a legal cause of action

Now this doesnt mean an employee automatically has a legal cause just because they disagree with the termination. The employee must state a cause of action ( demonstrate that a statute of law has been violated) upon filing a pleading. If the employee DOES NOT state a cause of action, the defense (Employer) simply moves for summary judgment before trial and if in fact the employee has not demonstrated with sufficient evidence that a law or statute has been violated, the court will grant defendants (employers) motion, and the employees case will be immediately dismissed. You cant just go to court and say, "well, I was retaliated against for calling my boss an idiot". Being able to call your boss an idiot is not a socially granted right or a legal right or legal duty given to the employee. The employer may fire even though it was in retaliation for the remark.
Now say you file a workmans comp claim, and the employer fires you the next day. IF....IF you have sufficient evidence that you were fired for filing the WM comp claim, then the employer has fired for bad cause, because you have a legal right to file a WM comp claim.
If you still cant see the difference, let me know, I'll try to explain it better.

 

[cbg]

I know the difference. What I'm saying is that you are leaving that impression to employees who don't know any better.

What the average employee thinks of as bad cause is not necessarily going to be a violation of public policy.

Hopefully they'll read the entire thread to get the definitions, but I doubt it. It's generally best to make those definitions clear in the initial response.

 

[Tony31]

I know the difference. What I'm saying is that you are leaving that impression to employees who don't know any better.

What the average employee thinks of as bad cause is not necessarily going to be a violation of public policy.

Hopefully they'll read the entire thread to get the definitions, but I doubt it. It's generally best to make those definitions clear in the initial response.

I thought I was pretty clear, and even cited the case so it can be looked up.

Keep in mind that most employment is at-will. You or the employer can terminate for any reason or no reason. An employer cannot terminate for anything that violates public policy, such as reporting the company commiting a crime, or for you taking time of to serve on a jury, etc.

The key to an employees claim is the proper definition of a public policy that has been violated by the employer.

The court determines what bad cause is.

A survey of cases involving retaliatory discharge shows that a matter must strike at the heart of a citizen's social rights, duties, and responsibilities before the tort will be allowed.
So firing for bad cause would be to fire an employee because that employee did something he had a social right, duty, or responsibilty to perform.
Now what constitutes public policy? Public policy is to be found in a states constitution, statutes (laws), or where those are silent, in its judicial decisions.

 

[cbg]

Tony, you still aren't getting it.

I am an employer. In fact, I work in HR. I have a very good grasp of employment law. I have had attorneys in other specialties tell me that I know more employment law than they do. I have been answering questions on this board for almost four years and on other boards for several years longer. I have learned from much experience how the average poster takes knowledge away from these threads. I am not asking you to explain something I don't understand.

What I am trying to explain to you is that the average joe employee, seeing you state that bad cause gives them a cause of legal action, is not going to take the time and trouble to read your case law. They are going to assume that "bad cause" means any case that they feel is unfair or unjustified. They are going to assume that what THEY consider bad cause automatically gives them a cause of action because they saw it on a law site on the Internet.

Now, please stop trying to condescend to me. I know what you are trying to say. I also know that someone who doesn't do this for a living will not.