Unlawful termination

[DanBassSr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Alabama
Resign or be terminated! Either way I lost my job. Since I was on parole I was threatened with being prosecuted if I didn't resign and was told that I would immediately be locked back up simply because they would charge me. Not sure if they had a case and not sure if I would be locked back up simply based on charges I resigned. I put a nurse's initials on a checklist per her request. Was that fraudulent since the nurse asked me to do it? I didn't know so I resigned. I'm now thinking of sueing the nursing home. Do I have a case since I was threatened or not? I was also told that if I talked to anyone about the whole resignation that they would prosecute. In other words I was threatened that if I got a lawyer they would prosecute. Does anyone have any help?

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Alabama
Resign or be terminated! Either way I lost my job. Since I was on parole I was threatened with being prosecuted if I didn't resign and was told that I would immediately be locked back up simply because they would charge me. Not sure if they had a case and not sure if I would be locked back up simply based on charges I resigned. I put a nurse's initials on a checklist per her request. Was that fraudulent since the nurse asked me to do it? I didn't know so I resigned. I'm now thinking of sueing the nursing home. Do I have a case since I was threatened or not? I was also told that if I talked to anyone about the whole resignation that they would prosecute. In other words I was threatened that if I got a lawyer they would prosecute. Does anyone have any help?

You commited an act of fraud and forgery by signing the other person's initials. They have done nothing illegal. Time for you to look for another job.

 

[Yertle8]

But what reason could they have to force him into resignation over it? I agree they have every right to fire him, but why wouldn't they just do that? I'd suggest the only reason would be an attempt to preent collection of unemployment. They probably don't realize that from a UI point of view, 'resign or you're fired' is the same as 'you're fired.' The threats about immediately being locked up if he said anything to anyone were probably also to make sure that he didn't even file for UI benefits.

I'm not saying that you won't be jailed if you file and they report what happened. I, nor anyone else, can say that with any certainty. It looks like they might be trying to screw over a guy who they think is over a barrel. If you think you actually are over a barrel, then I guess you can't do much. But their actions say, to me at least, that they think you might qualify for UI if you applied.

 

[commentator]

If you get a lawyer and what? You cannot sue the nursing home. No laws have been violated. They could have fired you for falsifying a document. It was not illegal to do so. The thing is, if you refuse to resign and they terminate you, you would have a slightly better chance of receiving unemployment insurance. BUt yertle is right, if they give you a choice of resign or be terminated, it's probably going to be considered a termination for unemployment purposes anyhow. (Though you may not be monetarily eligible, since you've not been working there too long. By all means, file a claim and check on it.)

If you are terminated from a job, any job, do you go straight back to jail, without any sort of consideration of the circumstances? That sounds like it would be up to your parole officer, not your employer, as holding you under this threat would be sort of like slave labor. They may have threatened you, but unless they did their worst, which they probably would have done, if they had really had anything to prosecute you with, you just cooperated with them and went away. Unless you did something they really had a good case to charge you for, and you were convicted, it doesn't sound as though they have the power to tell you to go directly back to prison.

 

[Zigner]

Being fired for the reason given by our OP would prevent UI coverage. She falsified a legal document.

I'm thinking the employer was trying to give this employee a teensy bit of break. A resignation looks much better to future employers.

 

[commentator]

Respectfully disagree. If a person is given the option of "resign or be terminated", it is a very good indication that the employer does not want to go through the termination procedure, perhaps in part because they do not have a good misconduct job related misconduct reason to terminate, with proper documentation and a progressive train of discipline. In other words, the person might very well get approved for unemployment, which would cost the employer money.

Voluntary resignation is not exactly a look better on your future references. Because I suspect that this nice employer is going to say the person resigned in lieu of being fired, which is going to look the same any way you slice it.

If the person voluntarily quits, then the burden of proof that they had a good job related reason to quit is on them related to unemployment. So on many occasions, with NO idea of giving anyone a break, the employer will say, "well, wouldn't you rather quit, so it will look better on your job references? " In my humble opinion, "I just quit" isn't a very good looking thing on a work history anyhow.

For public assistance purposes, and in most parole or probation situations, being fired and then being approved for unemployment is a much less damaging thing than voluntarily quitting the job. A person who voluntarily quits a job in most states becomes ineligible for Food Stamps/food coupons for a certain time and a person who quits a job is in real trouble with their probation or parole status. However, if you were unemployed through no fault of your own, or you were put out of a job and then unemployment saw that you were eligible for benefits, this is a much more 'not your fault' situation.

They very well may have wanted to get rid of this person. However, exactly what he had done, signing off on the paperwork is an iffy thing as actual misconduct. While it certainly warrants a warning or a written notice, I really doubt if they could prosecute. Unless they have irrefutable evidence that this person was stealing drugs from the patients, they probably were bluffing about prosecuting him/her.

 

[Zigner]

Committing a crime during the course of ones job duties will be a difficult hurdle to overcome at the UI office.

 

[Banned_Princess]

Committing a crime during the course of ones job duties will be a difficult hurdle to overcome at the UI office.

Lol, how would he even try to cover that at first? They "lacked work" for me since I was found to have committed a crime at work?

 

[commentator]

If this person, working at a nursing home, mind you, caring for helpless old people, committed a prosecutable crime, such as stealing their meds, then if they do NOT prosecute him, if they send him out onto the community to perhaps go to work at another nursing facility, then they should be prosecutable, in my opinion.

It does not sound to me as if the employer has this on the person. If they did, as I said, file the charges! But if they don't like him, don't like his work, they found something they think they can get rid of him for, and he goes off "resigning" without trying to file for benefits, that's a big win for them.

Yes, anyone has the right to file for unemployment benefits when they leave their job. Your spot decision about whether you think it will fly with the unemployment office to the side, he certainly has the right to try, and he will be given due process. His version of the situation will be recorded. The employer will be contacted, exactly what proof of misconduct they have will be examined, and a decision will be made as to his eligiblity for benefits.

Even if the employer has really good proof of misconduct, the unemployment office will still not smart off to him, tell him he's wasted their time, or tell him to go away or they'll press charges.

In fact, in some states, public welfare requires that the discharged/forced to quit employee go through the unemployment filing and appeals process before they can file for Food Stamps or other forms of public assistance.

The issue I see is that this person may not have been out of prison and working long enough to have covered wages in the base period to set up an unemployment claim. If this is the case, then he's unable to go any further, to appeal, or to try for approval on the reason for leaving the job.

He is just going to have to go out and find another job, which was the case anyway. I really hope he wasn't doing anything too dreadful, such as molesting the clients at the nursing home or stealing their medicines, because the former place (being nice) did not press charges, and they've by doing this, put him out on the community with a "better" ??reference.

 

[Yertle8]

Lol, how would he even try to cover that at first? They "lacked work" for me since I was found to have committed a crime at work?

Oh sorry, I missed the part where they called the police, the OP was arrested, and then later was found guilty of a crime. I missed that because it did't happen.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but the actions of the former employer seem to very much point in the direction of avoiding paying a UI tax increase.

 

[cbg]

I would just like to make the point that regardless of a final determination on unemployment, this was not a wrongful termination. The nursing home violated no laws and no public policy by the termination; therefore the termination was legal regardless of whether UI is granted or not. It may or may not have been "fair" since the OP claims he was asked by the nurse to put her initials, but it was not in any way illegal and the OP has no grounds to sue. The law does not care about fair; the law only cares about legal, and this was. Whether UI is or is not granted does not change that fact in any way.

We've gotten off track in the discussion and I don't believe that point has been brought home to the poster.

 

[Zigner]

Oh sorry, I missed the part where they called the police, the OP was arrested, and then later was found guilty of a crime. I missed that because it did't happen.

Ahh, so when the employer brings it up at the UI hearing, are you actually suggesting that our OP LIE and state that it didn't happen? Really? We don't do that here.

ETA:
Let me clarify - the OP has already admitted to us AND to his employer that he did this. Whether he was prosecuted or not is irrelevant. IF he tells the truth at the UI hearing, then he is admitting to the violation/crime.

 

[Yertle8]

I'm not suggesting anyone lie, that's an extrapolation you've made. You don't know the details of what happened or how it would play out in a UI hearing. The employer is acting as if they believe the OP might be approved.

 

[mlane58]

You don't know the details of what happened or how it would play out in a UI hearing. The employer is acting as if they believe the OP might be approved.

You don't either and you certainly don't have a clue as to what the intentions of the employer are. So it seems you are just as quilty of making assumptions based on just what the OP states.

 

[DanBassSr]

We've really gotten off track. The only thing I did was to initial the nurse's checklist stating that she performed a certain task. The checklist was only for backup purposes because the nurse entered the information in a computer. My question was did I commit fraud? I thought that anyone can authorization anyone else to sign for them without it being fraud. My understanding of fraud is to sign someone's name or initials without their knowledge and for fraudulent purposes. I guess I was wrong. I will go on and find another job.

Thanks!