Unreasonable request or misconduct?

[lawgames]

New York and others.

OK - Brief and to the point... I'll try.

Small company, ex-husband is president, ex-wife is employee. Ex-husband had a long affair, got the divorce, married the girlfriend, and made the new wife a vice president in the company. Divorce agreement requires ex-wife's continued employment in company they built together, and husband has to pay salary if she is terminated for any reason. Company changes her job from accounting the books to working in HR, but there is little work in HR for her to do. Company then says since she has no work (because of them taking away her accounting work), she must report to and work for the ex-husband's new wife. Ex-husband knows full well ex-wife will not do this. Company then fires ex-wife for insubordination and misconduct. Company is denying UC claim, and ex-husband has not paid salary IAW divorce agreement. Ex-husband is petitioning divorce court to claim ex-wife screwed up her job, so he shouldn't have to pay.

Question: Given the cicumstances, wouldn't the employer requirement for ex-wife to work for new wife be deemed an unreasonable request? Ex-wife feels (and I agree) that no reasonable person would work under those conditions, and that these events were clearly orchestrated to assist the ex-husband to modify his divorce agreement downward.

Looking forward to your thoughts about this one... thanks.

 

[Beth3]

Ex-wife should immediately contact the attorney who handled her divorce and seek further legal representation. She needs it.

(I also have to observe that a divorce agreement that included the ex-wife staying with the company and working for the ex-husband and mistress/new wife was bound to be a frickin' disaster but that's water under the bridge now.)

 

[cbg]

The company does not have the power to deny benefits. Only the state does. The company has the right to contest benefits, but only the state has the power to grant or deny them.

I understand what you are saying, but having a good reason to quit is not the same as having just cause to quit for purposes of unemployment benefits.

 

[lawgames]

Thanks for the responses. Divorce attorney is already involved, but he is only handling the divorce stuff which is in the Georgia courts. He will fight to uphold her divorce agreement, but he doesn't offer much advice with respect to the behavior of this company. The state (NY) has already denied benefits based on the company claims of misconduct as described, and ex-wife has to return thousands in paid benefits. The appeal hearing is next week. The reason I wrote this question is because the UC determination is based on the initial state reviewers judgement that the company requirement that the ex-wife work with the new wife was reasonable. The ex-wife's only defense is that this was clearly unreasonable and contrived to force her to quit. This denial of benefits, besides costing her $$$, will add fuel to the ex-husbands claim in divorce court. That is clearly exactly what he had intended.

If she is unsuccessful with the first UC appeal, she will appeal again. Also, if she is denied benefits based on this company's manipulation of her empoyment conditions, wouldn't that be considered damages to her? Would she then have a possible civil case against the company? She can probably prove a couple of lies, and the company will have to get a lot of people to lie if it goes to court. I realize you don't know all the details of the evidence and such. Obviously, there isn't too much evidence because the company oficers are not stupid, but there is some and when you look at the big picture the conspiracy seems clear.

 

[lawgames]

forgot something

Yes it was a disaster in he making... but the girlfriend didn't become the new wife and get hired into the company untill after the divorce agreement was made.

 

[Beth3]

The ex-wife did agree to the divorce settlement that included her staying with the company, knowing the ex-wife would be a VP. It doesn't surprise me that UC benefits have been denied. She should certainly appeal but I suspect she's fighting a losing battle.

"Also, if she is denied benefits based on this company's manipulation of her empoyment conditions, wouldn't that be considered damages to her?" Not as a matter of employment law.

"Would she then have a possible civil case against the company?" No.

 

[lawgames]

I do not understand your response. The ex-wife agreed to the divorce settlement well before the husband married the girlfriend and made her (now the new wife) a VP. The ex-wife was not a VP.

When the company hired the new wife, the husband told the ex-wife she would never have to work with her, and she never did for over a year. This is some of the "evidence" I spoke of. This verbal agreement was common knowledge in the company, but several officers of the company who were aware of the agreement and who are responsible to provide statements to UC, are now denying there was such an agreement. I doubt that everyone in the company will lie about it, though. She has requested testimony from several employees on her behalf.

Doesn't anyone think that the employers requirement for the ex-wife to work for and subordinate to the new wife is an unreasonable request, especially when there was no compelling reason to do so?

As far as the damages, I would assume it is a matter of civil law. Officers of the company have conspired, under the direction of the president (ex-husband), to get ex-wife terminated under contrived negative circumstances. UC bases negative determination on contrived story, she suffers financially. Sounds like a valid civil case, assuming there is enough evidence to support it.

 

[cbg]

Whether anyone here thinks it's unreasonable doesn't matter. Even if it is, that doesn't make it illegal; that doesn't give her the right to unemployment compensation, and it doesn't matter one whit as a matter of law. Unless it is a valid reason under your state's law (which is highly unlikely) the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the reqest has nothing whatsoever to do with her eligibility.

Just because it's unreasonable in an emotional sense, does not give her any rights under the law that she would not normally have.

You're assuming that it's a matter of civil law, but it isn't. Every state in the US except Montana is an at-will state. That means that an employee can quit for any reason whatsoever, and an employee can be fired for any reason that does not violate the law. The "conspiracy" you mention does not violate any laws.

 

[Ramoth]

From a legal standpoint, asking the ex-wife to report to the new wife does not count as unreasonable. The "agreement" that she would never have to report to the new wife was a verbal agreement, and thus only worth the paper it was printed on. The state was correct in denying UI benefits.

 

[Beth3]

"Doesn't anyone think that the employers requirement for the ex-wife to work for and subordinate to the new wife is an unreasonable request, especially when there was no compelling reason to do so?" Yes, I do. But that doesn't mean it's grounds under the State's UC regulations to be able to quit and receive UC benefits.

 

[lawgames]

Regarding the validity of a verbal agreement, from this website:

In some states an oral contract is binding, and will be upheld in court. However, there generally must be some evidence that the discussion took place; in addition, the employer's past practices might be noted. A lawyer will be able to tell you whether or not your specific circumstances and evidence will be enough to protect you.

In this case. there is evidence the discussion took place, and over a years worth of past practices. I think she needs to focus on the verbal agreement.

 

[lawgames]

Regarding the legality of the employer's actions, and possible liability, again taken from the FAQ on this website:

MY WORKING CONDITIONS WERE INTOLERABLE SO I QUIT. CAN I CHALLENGE MY JOB LOSS AS IF I WAS FIRED?

Probably. Most states recognize "constructive termination" of employment and treat it similarly to an actual firing. For example, if the employer reduces your wages from $12 per hour to $6 per hour, switches your day hours to the moonlight shifts, and changes your position from secretary to stevedore, that would clearly be a constructive termination.

An employee in a state that recognizes constructive wrongful termination does not have to be fired in order to have the ability to sue an employer for intolerable working conditions. If an employee can prove that an employer created intolerable working conditions in an effort to get the employee to quit, and these conditions were known by the employer, or intentionally created by the employer, then the employee may pursue a constructive wrongful termination action.

The remedies available in a successful constructive wrongful termination action are similar to those in a suit due to actual wrongful termination.


In this case, it seems the only issue is the definition of "intolerable working conditions" and if it is applicable. The rest is an exact match to what happened.

 

[cbg]

lawgames, obviously you do not want to hear any answer except that the employers are wrong and that the employee can sue. Therefore instead of asking strangers on a bulletin board to diagnose a complicated situation on the basis of a couple of paragraphs in a vaccuum, you should put the entire story in front of a local lawyer and let HIM explain it to you.

BTW, there are several FAQ's on this site that are incorrect.

 

[Beth3]

lawgames, intolerable working conditions apply when an employer has engaged in unlawful conduct, such as prohibited sexual harassment. The bottom line here is that your friend quit because she didn't like her boss. That is not a reason that would allow benefits.

This isn't about what you, or I, or anyone else thinks is a good reason to quit - it's about unemployment laws and what they define as "just cause" to resign a job and collect UC benefits.