Rules/Law about being Laid Off

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

Hi there, I work for a company that has had to go through many lay-offs. I've heard that we have to be careful about how those positions are absorbed by the rest of our employees, because if we basically assign all those job tasks to someone new, then the position we just "eliminated" due to "reduction in force" had no reason to be eliminated... opening the company up to some liability.

Specifically, one person in my department who had a lot more responsibilities than I did was let go, and it was explained to me that it isn't as simple as transferring all her stuff to my job description because then we might as well have kept her and laid *me* off.

Is that true?

So the particular instance that's prompting me to ask today is one of my friends in a different department was laid off about a month ago. Now they have an open position in that department (we've since survived and are starting to bounce back) and he is trying to get re-hired without really bothering with the application process. He feels like they should just hand him back his position.

So with my previous understanding regarding eliminating positions with the "reduction in force" justification, must my company then rehire my laid-off friend or are they totally justified in weighing everyone equally and possibly choosing someone with no previous connection to us?

I'm just curious, I wasn't going to go around meting out justice or getting myself in trouble. I just am hearing and seeing the same situation played out differently. Maybe the first example was a nice way of saying that they didn't want me to get too big for my position and the second is a nice way of saying "we didn't want to keep [my friend] on anyway."

arkera said:

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

Hi there, I work for a company that has had to go through many lay-offs. I've heard that we have to be careful about how those positions are absorbed by the rest of our employees, because if we basically assign all those job tasks to someone new, then the position we just "eliminated" due to "reduction in force" had no reason to be eliminated... opening the company up to some liability.

Specifically, one person in my department who had a lot more responsibilities than I did was let go, and it was explained to me that it isn't as simple as transferring all her stuff to my job description because then we might as well have kept her and laid *me* off.

Is that true?

So the particular instance that's prompting me to ask today is one of my friends in a different department was laid off about a month ago. Now they have an open position in that department (we've since survived and are starting to bounce back) and he is trying to get re-hired without really bothering with the application process. He feels like they should just hand him back his position.

So with my previous understanding regarding eliminating positions with the "reduction in force" justification, must my company then rehire my laid-off friend or are they totally justified in weighing everyone equally and possibly choosing someone with no previous connection to us?

I'm just curious, I wasn't going to go around meting out justice or getting myself in trouble. I just am hearing and seeing the same situation played out differently. Maybe the first example was a nice way of saying that they didn't want me to get too big for my position and the second is a nice way of saying "we didn't want to keep [my friend] on anyway."

Click to expand...

Your company is under no obligation to hire anyone back. They can choose anyone they wish.

There are no rules or guidelines employers need to follow when laying people off.

They law off who they lay off, and whoever gets to stay should consider themselves lucky.

Ok, cool... That's about what I thought. So my friend is just being petulant.

As a side note: I know I'm very lucky to be here still. I don't know how I survived, but I'm happy I did!

I've heard that we have to be careful about how those positions are absorbed by the rest of our employees, because if we basically assign all those job tasks to someone new, then the position we just "eliminated" due to "reduction in force" had no reason to be eliminated... opening the company up to some liability.

You have heard incorrectly. A job elimination does not mean that the duties of that position no longer need to be done; it means that they will either be redistributed (done by fewer people) or relocated (done by, say, the regional office instead of the branch office). Job eliminiation IS a headcount issue.

Additionally, if you are in an at-will state (if you are not in Montana, you are in an at-will state - and even Montana recognizes at-will in some situations), you do not need a reason to terminate someone. As long as you are not doing it for a reason specifically prohibited by law, it is legal. You can terminate someone for wearing (or not wearing) green socks.

Whoever told you that is either mistaken or hoping desperately to talk you into not eliminating HER job.