what should i do???

[jdmoore7898]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
i recently resigned from my job under less than perfect circumstances, and am wondering if i legally have to list them on my future applications (i only worked for them for 3 and a half months). i am afraid that if i list them on a resume or application they will not give me a great recomendation. i have already been informed by my previous boss that i don"t have to list them as a refrence, but is this true? i dont want to "lie" or not list something on an application, but as i have said i got the feeling that i would not recieve a great recomendation from this employer. can a future employer choose not to hire me if they find out that i left this employer off of my resume. i have the notice of resignation which states the reason that i left, but can i exclude this employer from my applications.

 

[JETX]

am wondering if i legally have to list them on my future applications

i have already been informed by my previous boss that i don"t have to list them as a refrence, but is this true?

There is no legal requirement for you to show ANY previous employer. However, your potential employer might ask you about any 'missing' time.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
i recently resigned from my job under less than perfect circumstances, and am wondering if i legally have to list them on my future applications (i only worked for them for 3 and a half months). i am afraid that if i list them on a resume or application they will not give me a great recomendation. i have already been informed by my previous boss that i don"t have to list them as a refrence, but is this true? i dont want to "lie" or not list something on an application, but as i have said i got the feeling that i would not recieve a great recomendation from this employer. can a future employer choose not to hire me if they find out that i left this employer off of my resume. i have the notice of resignation which states the reason that i left, but can i exclude this employer from my applications.

If you are asked on an application to include ALL previous employers, and asked sign under penalties of perjury, then under California law, omitting an employer would be perjury.

See An Explanation of California Perjury Law | Penal Code 118 PC for more information.

 

[JETX]

If you are asked on an application to include ALL previous employers, and asked sign under penalties of perjury, then under California law, omitting an employer would be perjury.

See An Explanation of California Perjury Law | Penal Code 118 PC for more information.

The chances of ANYONE applying for a job that REQUIRES full disclosure of ALL employment.... and then under OATH is extremely rare. I can only think of applications for very sensitive positions (law enforcement, highly sensitive placement, security clearance, etc.) where your 'advice' would even remotely apply.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

The chances of ANYONE applying for a job that REQUIRES full disclosure of ALL employment.... and then under OATH is extremely rare. I can only think of applications for very sensitive positions (law enforcement, highly sensitive placement, security clearance, etc.) where your 'advice' would even remotely apply.

It doesn't matter of the position is for a garbage collector.

If they ask for information, and you omit the information, you cannot claim the information is complete. Doing so qualifies as perjury under California Law.

Try reading the link

 

[JETX]

If they ask for information, and you omit the information, you cannot claim the information is complete. Doing so qualifies as perjury under California Law.

Try reading the link

You need to quit relying on incorrect information in web links..... and learn the REAL law.....

From California Penal Code:
118. (a) Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.

This subdivision is applicable whether the statement, or the testimony, declaration, deposition, or certification is made or subscribed within or without the State of California.

(b) No person shall be convicted of perjury where proof of falsity rests solely upon contradiction by testimony of a single person other than the defendant. Proof of falsity may be established by direct or indirect evidence.

119. The term "oath," as used in the last two sections, includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting the
truth of that which is stated.

Omitting an employer on an employment application, even if it says "under oath", does not constitute perjury.
Nor does OMITTING something from a statement.

 

[ecmst12]

BUT, you could still be fired for it.

 

[JETX]

BUT, you could still be fired for it.

Agreed....

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Omitting an employer on an employment application, even if it says "under oath", does not constitute perjury.
Nor does OMITTING something from a statement.

Which part of

INCLUDE ALL EMPLOYERS

don't you understand?

You are instructed to include all employers, and attest to the fact that you have included all employers.

If you are attesting to the fact that you have included all employers, omitting one is perjury.


ETA:

You need to quit relying on incorrect information in web links..... and learn the REAL law.....

The link provided more accurately explains the law than you incorrect statements.

 

[cyjeff]

Which part of

INCLUDE ALL EMPLOYERS

don't you understand?

You are instructed to include all employers, and attest to the fact that you have included all employers.

If you are attesting to the fact that you have included all employers, omitting one is perjury.


ETA:



The link provided more accurately explains the law than you incorrect statements.

There is a distinct and important difference between a court of law and the assistant manager at the local Choke and Puke.

Yes, it is perjury to lie in court (that would be the "any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered" part). However, unless the employer swears him, under oath, in a court of law, your quote doesn't apply.

Having said that... be careful. Routine pulling of employment records is not unusual as part of a standard background check... basically, if you got a paycheck that paid into SS, they will see it.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

However, unless the employer swears him, under oath, in a court of law, your quote doesn't apply.

California has convicted people of perjury for lying on employment applications.

Clifford Bradley THOMPSON was convicted of six counts of perjury, five counts were employment applications, and the sixth was a taxi was a taxicab permit. People v. Thompson 61 Cal.App.4th 1269, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 267 (Cal.App. 3 Dist.,1998)

 

[JETX]

California has convicted people of perjury for lying on employment applications.

Clifford Bradley THOMPSON was convicted of six counts of perjury, five counts were employment applications, and the sixth was a taxi was a taxicab permit. People v. Thompson 61 Cal.App.4th 1269, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 267 (Cal.App. 3 Dist.,1998)

Can you really be this stupid. The case you cite has nothing to do with what you claim!!
And even if it were 'on point', the perjury was about his not having a criminal record.... not about omitting a prior employer!!

From the court record:
"Between 1991 and 1993 defendant, using a variety of aliases, applied for employment at five group homes for children. On each employment application, defendant stated, under penalty of perjury, that he had no criminal convictions. In reality, defendant had five felony convictions and three misdemeanor convictions. In each case, the group home employer considered the criminal history information to be crucial and material to employment. Defendant submitted his fingerprints with each application.

Each of the five group homes hired, and eventually fired, defendant. The group homes, with one exception, would not have hired defendant with the knowledge of his use of aliases and prior convictions.

Defendant also filled out an application for a taxi cab permit under an alias. On the application, under penalty of perjury, defendant stated he had never been convicted of a crime. In addition, defendant submitted fingerprints. Ultimately, a taxicab permit was issued to defendant. The permit would not have been issued had authorities known defendant used a false name and had five felony and three misdemeanor convictions."

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Can you really be this stupid. The case you cite has nothing to do with what you claim!!

Gee, resorting to name calling (again). What a surprise.