Set-up to be fired - boyfriend left company

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? ARIZONA

I know that Arizona is a "right to work" state which means I can either be let go or quit at anytime, legally. However, I feel that something fishy went on with my situation. My boyfriend worked for the same company I did. The employers kept promising him reviews and raises, which never actualized. He looked for employment elsewhere and then gave his two weeks' notice when he had found another job. Two days after he left the company, my boss called me up late that afternoon (while I was at work) and told me that it would be my last day and he'd pay me through that day (what a nice guy, right?). I asked why I was being let go... he had just given me a raise, told me what a wonderful job I was doing, and said that everyone in the company loved me. He also said he had never had someone do that particular job so well. He said, "There are some confidentiality issues, I'm not going to say anymore, you can let your mind wander." I remembered back to a week or so prior when he had asked me to "watch" certain employees in regards to their production. This was odd because that was NOT something someone in my job usually does. I knew the people in question (who were good friends of mine and upstanding people) were probably going to get fired unless they knew that they should boost their production. I let them know they should pick up the pace. When my boss fired me, he was referring to that incident. However, that was in the best interest of the company and it was only helping people out, not hurting anyone - especially the employer. I am 99% sure that he set me up to do that because he had a personal issue with my boyfriend leaving the company. I've been denied unemployment benefits and am about to attend an appeals hearing. What should I know or bring in defense?

Sorry, but this is a hot button item for me. Right to work means that you cannot be forced to join a union in order to get work. What you mean is that Arizona (like every other state except Montana) is an at-will state, meaning that you can quit at any time and for any reason, and they can fire you at any time and for any reason that does not violate the law.

Nothing whatsoever in your post indicates that anything illegal has transpired. Even if you are 100% correct that he "set you up" because of your boyfriend (which makes no sense at all because all he would have to do is fire you; he wouldn't have to "set you up") that is not illegal.

As far as your unemployment hearing is concerned, the burden of proof is on them to show that you were fired for misconduct or another reason that disqualifies you under your state's regs. Without knowing the basis on which you were denied benefits, however, it is difficult to advise you.

Sorry, you're right. Arizona is an "at-will" state. I was denied benefits for two reasons: I was in violation of a company rule that I knew or should have known, and I was not acting in the employer's best interest.

Here's what happened (sorry for the lengthy story):

I was the receptionist at a local mortgage company. My boyfriend was the CIO (the head I.T. guy) at that same company. As a result of them not giving him reviews or raises, and promising such, he found a better job. He gave his two weeks' notice and the bosses acted like they were happy for him that he was bettering his situation. Even after that, my boss continued to praise me and tell me what a wonderful job I was doing. I had recently gotten a raise and my boss told me he'd like to give me more responsibilities so I could earn more money. He had said no one had ever done my job as well. He even gave me the choice of working at the current location or at the main office. However, a few days after my boyfriends' notice, my boss asked me how two loan officers were doing in their production. This seemed like a very odd question because my boss looks at the same information that I do... I email it to him every week. These two loan officers were also friends of mine. I told him they looked like they were doing alright... it was slow because it was around Memorial Day. He then said they seemed to be "takers" - which I had no idea as to its reference. He said to "watch" them. I knew they would probably get fired if they didn't get a few more loans to show the boss (even though their production was no lower than anyone else's). I told them that they should boost their production a bit. I also asked what it meant to them that the boss thought they might be "takers". They had NO CLUE. They guessed it was because they asked a lot of questions (thereby taking up his time) because they were fairly new to the profession. They told me they would just stop asking so much and get more loans going.

My boss claimed that I broke his confidentiality by telling them that - even though it would have been in HIS best interest to tell them directly. Then when the unemployment office called my employer to ask his side of the story, he told them that I was supposed to be watching FOUR people and that he told me he was concerned with them stealing supplies (which he NEVER mentioned!). I was then denied benefits for the reasons stated at the top of this reply. I'm now about to have an appeals hearing. What should I do... can I do anything?

All you can do is tell your side of the story as clearly as you can. The adjudicator will make the decision as to which of you is more creditable and how that fits into your state's laws on eligiblity.

Andrea, understand when I say this first, that I know nothing that you have not told me and secondly, I have no dog in this hunt. That being said, it strikes me as having been very unwise for you to have said what you did to the other employees. Whether it would have been in the boss's interest to speak to them directly is not the point and was not your decision to make. If he had wanted them to know, he would have told them. It is NOT always in the best interest of the company as a whole for an employee to know that they are under scrutiny. I have seen it happen that employees who were told that they needed to increase sales/pick up production/clean up whatever act needed cleaning up, to do so only as long as they thought someone was looking. By not letting them know when someone is looking, the company gets a better idea of what the REAL story actually is.

Based SOLELY on what is in your post, I would estimate you chance of winning the appeal as being no better than 50/50.

I'm not trying to be rude or mean; just to explain how things can look from an outside perspective, which may be of help to you as you go into the hearing.

I do appreciate your honesty. In regards to the two reasons why I was denied benefits... how will my situation be looked at?

1) I violated a company rule that was known or should have been known (I never signed anything, nor had any sort of employee handbook shown to me)

2) I did not act in the best interest of the employer

Also, my employer told the unemployment office that I was supposed to be watching four people (not two) and that I was supposed to be making sure they weren't stealing supplies (which was new information to me when the unemployment officer told me)

I have no direct experience with unemployment in your state so I can't say how an adjudicator will look at these issues. I can tell you a couple of things though, that may help you put your thoughts together.

There is no legal necessity for you to have been shown something or told it, in order for an employer to claim "should have known". The law does not require there to be written policies, still less that you have to sign anything. (Admittedly, it is good practice for there to be written policies or handbooks and I've always advocated getting employee signatures on them - however, it's not legally required.) An example I've used before is that I doubt that any employee handbook in existance contains a policy that it's against company policy to set fire to the CEO's office; however, you can be that if you do, you'll be fired.

You will be given an opportunity at the hearing to make a statement and ask questions of your employer. You will be able to make the point that you were only asked to watch two employees (if it seems right, you may want to consider asking him who the other two were and when you were told to watch them, but see how it's going before you decide) and that you were not told that they were under suspicion for stealing. It will be up to the adjudicator, however, to determine who is the more creditable. That's not something I can help with.

Thank you - I appreciate all your help.