• 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.

Terminated and don't know why

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Xtine22

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

I live in Virginia and I understand that we are an at will state, today I was fired from the company I've work for about 3 years for, my boss stated that "it's just not working out" I've received no written or verbal warnings which is stated in the company handbook for termination. I have not violated any policy that I am aware of and have no disciplinary action in my file. I came off vacation and was fired an hour before I was suppose to leave for the day.

I read something about an "implied contract" but need some clarification on it or even if I should go to the HR department or to seek out a lawyer. I'm just a bit confused because I was a manager at the company and hired and fired employees throughout my time and the company is strict on following the handbook. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
 


sandyclaus

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

I live in Virginia and I understand that we are an at will state, today I was fired from the company I've work for about 3 years for, my boss stated that "it's just not working out" I've received no written or verbal warnings which is stated in the company handbook for termination. I have not violated any policy that I am aware of and have no disciplinary action in my file. I came off vacation and was fired an hour before I was suppose to leave for the day.

I read something about an "implied contract" but need some clarification on it or even if I should go to the HR department or to seek out a lawyer. I'm just a bit confused because I was a manager at the company and hired and fired employees throughout my time and the company is strict on following the handbook. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
The whole point to "at will" employment is that an employer can fire you for any reason they choose, as long as it's not for an illegal reason (i.e. against state or federal law, or against the terms of an employment contract).

They gave you a reason - they said it wasn't working out. I would suggest that you proceed to your nearest unemployment office and file a claim as soon as possible.
 

swalsh411

Senior Member
Nothing illegal here. File for unemployment while you look for a new job. You can file your claim online by the way you don't need to go to the unemployment office.
 
I read something about an "implied contract" but need some clarification on it or even if I should go to the HR department or to seek out a lawyer. I'm just a bit confused because I was a manager at the company and hired and fired employees throughout my time and the company is strict on following the handbook. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Implied contracts arise when there is no written contract, but the actions of the employer suggested that the employee would not be fired without cause. This can happen in a multitude of ways. If a manager has made statements about the employee having a long future with the company if he performs well, this could be construed as an implied contract that would require cause before termination. Employee handbooks which state that an employee will be given verbal or written warnings before termination can also create implied contracts.

These types of situations are very fact sensitive. Even if you provided us with all the details, we couldn't tell you how your case would turn out.

The only person qualified to help you with this situation and let you know if you were unfairly terminated is an attorney from your state.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
No company in it's right mind would make such a contract implied or express. The fact warnings may have been given in other situations does not equate to an implied contract that they will always be given.
 

commentator

Senior Member
Implied contracts arise when there is no written contract, but the actions of the employer suggested that the employee would not be fired without cause. This can happen in a multitude of ways. If a manager has made statements about the employee having a long future with the company if he performs well, this could be construed as an implied contract that would require cause before termination. Employee handbooks which state that an employee will be given verbal or written warnings before termination can also create implied contracts.

These types of situations are very fact sensitive. Even if you provided us with all the details, we couldn't tell you how your case would turn out.

The only person qualified to help you with this situation and let you know if you were unfairly terminated is an attorney from your state.
What case are you talking about? You're leading this person to believe there may be a case, (for wrongful termination, I assume) when there is not. The implied contract doctrine would not be usable to allow this person to sue for wrongful discharge in an "at will" state, because this situation happens all the time. Not many newly unemployed persons have the money and time to spend on an attorney to tell them this. And have them say "Yes, you were 'unfairly' (though not illegally) terminated! Hope that makes you feel better."

We decided this isn't working out is a polite way of saying "We want to get rid of you, we don't have to tell you why." And they are right. OP, file for unemployment insurance. Tell them exactly what you have told us. Do not day you were let go for lack of work or that you quit. Tell them you were involuntarily terminated through no fault of your own, no reason given. And they will contact the employer and ask why you were terminated. (In order to keep you from drawing benefits, which would cost them money in unemployent rates) they'd have to show they had some valid misconduct reason to terminate. if they want to fight about it, they'll have to tell the unemployment system why you were terminated. If they still don't wish to disclose, it will be very easy for you to get approved for unemployment as you're looking for another job.
 
Last edited:

Antigone*

Senior Member
Implied contracts arise when there is no written contract, but the actions of the employer suggested that the employee would not be fired without cause. This can happen in a multitude of ways. If a manager has made statements about the employee having a long future with the company if he performs well, this could be construed as an implied contract that would require cause before termination. Employee handbooks which state that an employee will be given verbal or written warnings before termination can also create implied contracts.

These types of situations are very fact sensitive. Even if you provided us with all the details, we couldn't tell you how your case would turn out.

The only person qualified to help you with this situation and let you know if you were unfairly terminated is an attorney from your state.
Bull Freaking Pucky!!!

Are you related to willie?:confused:
 
Bull Freaking Pucky!!!
I just researched this issue under California law, another at will state. Virginia law may not be the exact same, but it's likely the law is similar in all at will states.

The California Supreme Court gave a nice summation of the law in the case of Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1998) 47 Cal.3d 654. On pg. 680, the court says, "factors apart from consideration and express terms may be used to ascertain the existence and content of an employment agreement, including the personnel policies or practices of the employer, the employee's longevity of service, actions or communications by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment, and the practices of the industry in which the employee is engaged.”

In the case, the court specifically references the "termination guidelines" of an employer as being one method that an employer may limit their right to terminate employees at will. Other courts have relied on other factors in the rule announced by the CA Supreme Court, including verbal assurances that the employee could have a long career with the company if the employee continues to perform well, frequent promotions of an employee, length of employment with the company, and certain types of consideration given during the course of the employment, like the signing of an non compete agreement.

You're leading this person to believe there may be a case, (for wrongful termination, I assume) when there is not. The implied contract doctrine would not be usable to allow this person to sue for wrongful discharge in an "at will" state, because this situation happens all the time. Not many newly unemployed persons have the money and time to spend on an attorney to tell them this.
You're leading the OP to believe there is no case when there could be, thereby costing her a job and salary which she may be entitled to. It's best not to give legal advice unless you're a professional on the topic. All we can do here is give a summary of what we believe the law to be from our own personal experiences and research. None of us can properly advise the OP about the course of action she should take.

The best person to advise the OP about the merits of her case would be an attorney who is licensed to practice in the state of Virginia. Consultations are generally free, so the OP wouldn't be losing anything by speaking with an attorney to find out if she has a valid case or not.
 
The rest of your reply is moot. California is NOT VA. Period.
Perhaps you should read the rest of my post before you reply. :)

I stated that, although the law may be different, it is likely similar. In my research, it appeared that California was not exceptional in their handling of employment matters. The rules for implied contracts in employment are similar throughout the at-will states. Researching whether or not the rule in Virginia is the same and applicable to the facts here could be a long and exhausting process for anyone who's not already an attorney practicing within the State.

Regardless of what the law in Virginia turns out to be, it's clear that the possibility exists in Virginia, as it does in California, for the OP to have secured an implied agreement with her employer. It's not appropriate for people to advise the OP that she has no case. The only person qualified to make that determination is an attorney licensed to practice in the state of virginia.
 

Antigone*

Senior Member
Perhaps you should read the rest of my post before you reply. :)

I stated that, although the law may be different, it is likely similar. In my research, it appeared that California was not exceptional in their handling of employment matters. The rules for implied contracts in employment are similar throughout the at-will states. Researching whether or not the rule in Virginia is the same and applicable to the facts here could be a long and exhausting process for anyone who's not already an attorney practicing within the State.

Regardless of what the law in Virginia turns out to be, it's clear that the possibility exists in Virginia, as it does in California, for the OP to have secured an implied agreement with her employer. It's not appropriate for people to advise the OP that she has no case. The only person qualified to make that determination is an attorney licensed to practice in the state of virginia.
Like he said willie jr, "The rest of your reply is moot. California is NOT VA. Period."
 
Last edited:

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Perhaps you should read the rest of my post before you reply. :)

I stated that, although the law may be different, it is likely similar. In my research, it appeared that California was not exceptional in their handling of employment matters. The rules for implied contracts in employment are similar throughout the at-will states. Researching whether or not the rule in Virginia is the same and applicable to the facts here could be a long and exhausting process for anyone who's not already an attorney practicing within the State.

Regardless of what the law in Virginia turns out to be, it's clear that the possibility exists in Virginia, as it does in California, for the OP to have secured an implied agreement with her employer. It's not appropriate for people to advise the OP that she has no case. The only person qualified to make that determination is an attorney licensed to practice in the state of virginia.
In California, the OP would have no case. Of course, he's not in California, so your guesses and stabs in the dark are even MORE meaningless. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

tranquility

Senior Member
However, for Virginia law,
COUNTY OF GILES v. WINES
546 S.E.2d 721 (2001) 262 Va. 68
had the facts of:
Wines had no prior indication that he would be discharged. The Board did not give Wines notice of its intent to terminate his employment, nor did the Board inform him of the basis of the termination. The next day, as Wines was "cleaning out" his office, Mullins explained to Wines that the Board had discharged him because of personality conflicts and that Wines was "a casualty of poor judgments and . . . personality conflicts within the County and supervisors."
Wines retained an attorney who advised the Board by letter dated January 18, 1996 that the Board's termination of Wines' employment violated his constitutionally protected rights and his employment contract with the County as set forth in the County's Personnel Policy. In response to that letter, the Board convened a special meeting, and Wines was immediately reinstated and simultaneously discharged effective January 26, 1996. The Board did not provide Wines an opportunity to be heard regarding the Board's decision to terminate his employment. The Board also refused to provide Wines with any post-termination procedures. Subsequently, Wines filed an "amended motion for declaratory judgment and motion for judgment" against the County, the Board, and the supervisors in their individual capacities. Wines alleged, among other things, that the County and the Board (hereinafter the County) breached its employment contract with him because he could only be discharged for cause and that the County violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the County deprived him of a property right to continued employment subject to termination only for cause.
with the issue of:
The primary issue we consider in this appeal is whether a plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to support a jury's finding that he had an employment contract terminable only for just cause.
held:
We have stated that "Virginia strongly adheres to the common law employment-at-will doctrine." Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, Inc.,253 Va. 121, 123, 480 S.E.2d 502, 503 (1997); Lawrence Chrysler Plymouth Corp. v. Brooks, 251 Va. 94, 96, 465 S.E.2d 806, 808 (1996). In Virginia, an employment relationship is presumed to be at-will, which means that the employment term extends for an indefinite period and may be terminated by the employer or employee for any reason upon reasonable notice. Dray v. New Market Poultry Products, 258 Va. 187, 190, 518 S.E.2d 312, 313 (1999); Doss v. Jamco, Inc., 254 Va. 362, 366, 492 S.E.2d 441, 443 (1997); Progress Printing Co. v. Nichols, 244 Va. 337, 340, 421 S.E.2d 428, 429 (1992); Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Harris,190 Va. 966, 976, 59 S.E.2d 110, 114 (1950); Hoffman Company v. Pelouze, 158 Va. 586, 594, 164 S.E. 397, 399 (1932); Stonega Coke & Coal Co. v. Louisville and Nashville R.R. Co., 106 Va. 223, 226, 55 S.E. 551, 552 (1906).* In Miller v. SEVAMP, Inc., 234 Va. 462, 465, 362 S.E.2d 915, 917 (1987), we explained that:
"An employee is ordinarily at liberty to leave his employment for any reason or for no reason, upon giving reasonable notice, without incurring liability to his employer. Notions of fundamental fairness underlie the concept of mutuality which extends a corresponding freedom to the employer. See Town of Vinton v. City of Roanoke,195 Va. 881, 80 S.E.2d 608 (1954)."The presumption that an at-will employment relationship exists may be rebutted, however, if sufficient evidence is produced to show that the employment is for a definite, rather than an indefinite, term. Progress Printing Co., 244 Va. at 340, 421 S.E.2d at 429. In Norfolk Southern Railway Co., we held that a contractual agreement which stated that an employee "will not be disciplined or dismissed from [employment] without a just cause" created a definite term for the duration of the employment and that the employer could only dismiss the employee for cause. 190 Va. at 969, 976, 59 S.E.2d at 111, 114.
Applying the principles enunciated in our well-established precedent to the facts of this case, we hold that Wines failed to present evidence that he had an employment contract terminable solely for cause sufficient to rebut the employment at-will presumption. Section 8-5 of the County's Personnel Policy does not change the nature of Wines' employment at-will contract with the County. The language upon which Wines relies states that an "employee may be discharged for inefficiency, insubordination, misconduct, or other just cause." This sentence does not state that an employee shall only be discharged for inefficiency, insubordination, misconduct, or other just cause; nor does it state that an employee will not be discharged without just cause. We hold that the personnel policy at issue in this case is not sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in favor of the at-will employment relationship in this Commonwealth.
 
Like he said willie jr. The rest of your reply is moot. California is NOT VA. Period.
There's a surprising amount of willful ignorance in this thread.

I was wrong about how long it would take to research this issue. A quick google search gave me a link to a powerpoint presentation where someone has already put together all the case law for us. Isn't that nice of them? Here's the link: http://www.employmentlawgroup.net/Articles/ROswald/EmploymentFundamentals-DC-Bar-CLE-Slides.html

It appears the state of Virginia has been reluctant to recognize oral statements as forming implied contracts, but still recognizes that termination guidelines and statements in employee handbooks may create an implied agreement that limits an employer's ability to terminate employees without cause.

Because the OP specifically mentioned an employee handbook with termination guidelines that were not followed by her employer, it would be incredibly wise for her to seek the advice of an attorney licensed to practice in the state of Virginia. Hopefully she has not already dismissed the idea based on the erroneous advice she received from the first few people to comment on this thread.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
There's a surprising amount of willful ignorance in this thread.

I was wrong about how long it would take to research this issue. A quick google search gave me a link to a powerpoint presentation where someone has already put together all the case law for us. Isn't that nice of them? Here's the link: http://www.employmentlawgroup.net/Articles/ROswald/EmploymentFundamentals-DC-Bar-CLE-Slides.html

It appears the state of Virginia has been reluctant to recognize oral statements as forming implied contracts, but still recognizes that termination guidelines and statements in employee handbooks may create an implied agreement that limits an employer's ability to terminate employees without cause.

Because the OP specifically mentioned an employee handbook with termination guidelines that were not followed by her employer, it would be incredibly wise for her to seek the advice of an attorney licensed to practice in the state of Virginia. Hopefully she has not already dismissed the idea based on the erroneous advice she received from the first few people to comment on this thread.
Oh brother :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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