Recently hired... Then laid off 3 WEEKS later.

[winterk92]

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

Hi! I was recently hired at an engineering company. It's a small company (About 2 - 3 people) that works mainly on contracts.
I was hired 3 weeks ago, and was told that I would have a job until August 2014 as an intern.
He then realized after 3 weeks that he didn't have enough work for me to do. He started having me clean his house, and other nonsense until he finally told me that he needed to lay me off.
It definitely was not a performance issue, as I could tell that he was scrambling to find stuff for me to do.

I guess my question is this: Is it legal for an employer to hire someone and within 3 weeks break contract and lay someone off? It prevented me from exploring other summer internship possibilities, and it was really bogus.

Thankyou so much for your help,

 

[cbg]

Yes, it is, unless you had a legally binding and enforceable contract that guaranteed you a longer period of employment. Just as it would have been legal for you to quit three weeks in if a better offer came along.

Google, at will employment.

 

[winterk92]

Yes, it is, unless you had a legally binding and enforceable contract that guaranteed you a longer period of employment. Just as it would have been legal for you to quit three weeks in if a better offer came along.

Google, at will employment.

It never states directly within the contract that it is at-will employment. It states...
"The scope of twork for this agreement is expected to involve an average of 15 hours per week, and 60 hours per month. The start date shall be on or around Monday April 7, 2014, and shall terminate on Friday Aug 29, 2014. Total work hours are not to exceed 300 hours of work, to be completed by Aug 31, 2014. This scope may be expanded or extended upon mutual written agreement."

 

[cbg]

At-will is the default. You're an at will employee unless you sign something that expressly says you're not.

"Expected to" is key here. "Expected to" and "Is guaranteed to be" are not the same thing.

 

[Nellibelle]

It never states directly within the contract that it is at-will employment. It states...
"The scope of twork for this agreement is expected to involve an average of 15 hours per week, and 60 hours per month. The start date shall be on or around Monday April 7, 2014, and shall terminate on Friday Aug 29, 2014. Total work hours are not to exceed 300 hours of work, to be completed by Aug 31, 2014. This scope may be expanded or extended upon mutual written agreement."

You say in your initial post, you were told you had a job until August, 2014 and now, this post shows language from a contract that says your job shall terminate on "Friday, Aug. 29, 2014, not to exceed 300 hours of work. It sounds to me like your former employer is liable to you for 300 hours worth of work or employment until August 29, 2014 (which ever comes first) pursuant to the language in your contract. Of course, if your were let go as a result of 'just cause', then you would be totally out of luck.

I'm not an expert here, but from looking at your posts, it looks like you have a case against your former employer for Breach of Contract.

 

[Proserpina]

You say in your initial post, you were told you had a job until August, 2014 and now, this post shows language from a contract that says your job shall terminate on "Friday, Aug. 29, 2014, not to exceed 300 hours of work. It sounds to me like your former employer is liable to you for 300 hours worth of work or employment until August 29, 2014 (which ever comes first) pursuant to the language in your contract. Of course, if your were let go as a result of 'just cause', then you would be totally out of luck.

I'm not an expert here, but from looking at your posts, it looks like you have a case against your former employer for Breach of Contract.

Please describe "just cause" as it pertains to this thread.

Thanks.

OP, pay attention to cbg.

 

[Nellibelle]

Please describe "just cause" as it pertains to this thread.

Thanks.

OP, pay attention to cbg.

It is irrelevant. Apparently, winterk92 was let go in breach of contract. If cbg and you are saying that it absolutely is not a breach of contract, you are both wrong. If you are saying it could be a breach of contract based on winterk92's posts, you are right. It really is that simple.

 

[Proserpina]

It is irrelevant. Apparently, winterk92 was let go in breach of contract. If cbg and you are saying that it absolutely is not a breach of contract, you are both wrong. If you are saying it could be a breach of contract based on winterk92's posts, you are right. It really is that simple.

Perhaps you can re-read the wording and re-read cbg's legally accurate response.

"Expected to" is key here. "Expected to" and "Is guaranteed to be" are not the same thing

I'm sure you find this "unfair", but hey - that's law for ya.

 

[Nellibelle]

Perhaps you can re-read the wording and re-read cbg's legally accurate response.



I'm sure you find this "unfair", but hey - that's law for ya.

A contract that says a job is "expected to" rather than "guaranteed to" last a certain period of time and states the work shall (as in will) start in April and shall terminate in August and such work will not exceed 300 hours, pretty much would allow winterk92 a reasonable opportunity to dispute it and recover damages.

 

[I'mTheFather]

A contract that says a job is "expected to" rather than "guaranteed to" last a certain period of time and states the work shall (as in will) start in April and shall terminate in August and such work will not exceed 300 hours, pretty much would allow winterk92 a reasonable opportunity to dispute it and recover damages.

Please provide the statute that supports your claim.

 

[Nellibelle]

Please provide the statute that supports your claim.

Read the portion of the contract that was provided! Providing a statute isn't necessary! If you enter into a contract that says you will work a certain amount of time and then they let you go before you DO work the amount of time the contract says you will work, they've breached the contract and you have cause to recover damages. You are better off not entering into a contract when you hire someone, because then that someone IS an "At Will" employee. Under the circumstances explained by winterk92, it appears he has a case. He should consult with an Attorney!

 

[Proserpina]

Read the portion of the contract that was provided! Providing a statute isn't necessary! If you enter into a contract that says you will work a certain amount of time and then they let you go before you DO work the amount of time the contract says you will work, they've breached the contract and you have cause to recover damages. You are better off not entering into a contract when you hire someone, because then that someone IS an "At Will" employee. Under the circumstances explained by winterk92, it appears he has a case. He should consult with an Attorney!

Omaha! Omaha! Omaha!

That aside, you're not seeing the difference between "expected to" versus "guaranteed to be". Do try.

 

[I'mTheFather]

Read the portion of the contract that was provided! Providing a statute isn't necessary! If you enter into a contract that says you will work a certain amount of time and then they let you go before you DO work the amount of time the contract says you will work, they've breached the contract and you have cause to recover damages. You are better off not entering into a contract when you hire someone, because then that someone IS an "At Will" employee. Under the circumstances explained by winterk92, it appears he has a case. He should consult with an Attorney!

Go do a little reading about contract law and what constitutes an employment contract.

You're all over these boards spouting your opinions as legal advice. Stop.

 

[cbg]

We have yet to determine if this is actually a contract. Everything that a poster calls a contract does not meet the definition thereof.

If the poster likes, she is certainly free to pay an attorney to review what she is calling a contract and determine if the employer is required to pay her through August. Giving the wording that she has already provided, I very much doubt that will prove to be the case.

Not to mention the fact that there's a relevant proverb regarding blood and turnips.

Not to mention the fact that if the OP attempts to make the employer pay her money he hasn't got for work he does not have available for her to do, that can come back on her very, very big time and bite her in the behind. She should not rely on the very, very incorrect belief that employers are not allowed to say anything negative about an employee - they very much can, as long as it's true. It's only April. Every summer internship is not yet filled.

 

[commentator]

There is no guarantee of employment in this contract. And there is, in your "at will" state, no reason why the employer cannot terminate the contract at any time he so desires. Don't know who this other person is, but their opinion about whether you would have a case to sue this employer because he was not able to provide you with the complete guaranteed period of employment is just dead wrong.

Thousands of people are laid off due to lack of work every day. In your situation, there is nothing else to do, as I suspect you would not, as a student (intern), have wages in past covered quarters to set up an unemployment claim. That's what people do when the employer finds he does not have work for them, in spite of what they planned and expected, they file for unemployment benefits, because they are out of work through no fault of their own. They don't sue the employer for breach of promise, or something.

If you have been working for covered employers in the last two years, you should go on and file a claim for unemployment benefits. Since you were laid off for lack of work, you'd be eligible as far as the reason you aren't working any more, but not unless you have worked for covered employers during the past covered quarters and have enough wages to set up a claim.

And most of them had some sort of employment contract that they signed at the beginning of the employment, but no employment contract I've ever seen is binding enough to allow the employee to sue the employer for laying him off or not having enough work for him, much less for the loss of opportunity to seek other jobs.