Wrongful Termination

[witzeroni]

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

Here's what happened. I'm a software engineer. I got a good offer from a consulting company while I was working at a different one. I accepted the offer and after 4 weeks they let me go saying 'poor performance'. I argued that I was given a virtual machine that had many problems and I was working at a snails pace because of it. I asked my manager to do something about it and nothing was done while I was working there (network team tried unsuccessfully to speed it up for me). No warnings, emails about issues they were having with me at all. No serverance or anything - if fact when I asked about unemployment - they said that since I wasn't there long enough, my last company will be responsible (will find out Monday when I apply - but not worried about it as I know I will get it).

Questions - What legal documents can I get from hr? (reason for termination, etc., and I want to get these right away before they try to modify anything). Is there anything else I am entitled to? I will do my due dilligence and do my own research to see if their was a breach in any Federal / State law.

If the answer is that I have no case, my question would be that what is to prevent a company from hiring someone for a specific project and after the project is done, fire him and cite 'poor performance'?

 

[pattytx]

Although your termination may have been unfair, it is nowhere near a wrongful termination under the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_dismissal

There is no law in Texas requiring that the employer provide you with a written notice of termination, including the reason why.

In answer to your last question, nothing.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

There is no law in Texas requiring that the employer provide you with a written notice of termination, including the reason why.

Is there one in Illinois?

 

[witzeroni]

patty -
What are your credentials? If what you say is true, why would a compay EVER give a serverence to someone or lay anyone off for that matter?? Since business is all about making money, why not just fire the people when they are no longer needed and cite 'poor performance'? What you say makes no sense, as the purpose of a company is to make money, but they have to do everything within the confines of the law.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

patty -
What are your credentials? If what you say is true, why would a compay EVER give a serverence to someone or lay anyone off for that matter?? Since business is all about making money, why not just fire the people when they are no longer needed and cite 'poor performance'? What you say makes no sense, as the purpose of a company is to make money, but they have to do everything within the confines of the law.

At-will employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[swalsh411]

patty -
What are your credentials? If what you say is true, why would a compay EVER give a serverence to someone or lay anyone off for that matter?? Since business is all about making money, why not just fire the people when they are no longer needed and cite 'poor performance'? What you say makes no sense, as the purpose of a company is to make money, but they have to do everything within the confines of the law.

There are a number of reasons to offer severance. A few are below:

- industry standard practice
- reputation (you may want them to work for you again in the future and not tell all their friends how lousy you are)
- release from any lawsuit claims (valid or not) by the former employee
- the right thing to do in some cases (just because you're in business to make money doesn't mean you shouldn't do the right thing even if not legally required to do it)

The fact that patty's legally correct advice does not make sense to you doesn't mean it's wrong. It makes perfect sense to me. You were just hoping for a different answer.

 

[cbg]

Is there one in Illinois?

No.

And to answer the other question, firing everyone and citing poor performance would do really, really bad things to the employer's unemployment rate.

However, I need to correct Patty on one thing. This is very much the exception rather than the rule, so she cannot be blamed for not realizing this.

In Texas, if you make a WRITTEN request, the employer must give you a written statement of the reasons for termination.

However, this is not even close to a wrongful termination and while you are entitled to the letter as stated above, I'm not seeing anything even close to any kind of "case". No Federal and no state law was violated. Google, at-will employment.

 

[witzeroni]

After a little research I see that I am able to get my personnel files.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2395&ChapAct=820*ILCS*40/&ChapterID=68&ChapterName=EMPLOYMENT&ActName=Personnel+Record+Review+Act.

This is Illinois - things are a little different in this state. Business is regarded as the bad guy here. This is a situation where they actually were. BUsinesses don't want to fight against 1 man with a family who was done wrong. For that reason, I will go after them and there are state statutes as well as federal that apply. You can't just send me a link to 1 website.

It's just like unemployment - despite the law, even when a company has good reason to fire someone - that person always ends up with unemployment.

But in this case, I am in the right.

 

[commentator]

Excuuuuuse me? Did you just say...oh well, yeah, you did say that."It's just like unemployment - despite the law, even when a company has good reason to fire someone - that person always ends up with unemployment"

This just shows that you are possibly going to be in for quite a shock when you move forward with your unemployment issues here.

"For that reason, I will go after them and there are state statutes as well as federal that apply" Yeah, okay, just keep thinking that.

In no state in the union are these statements you made above even close to true. When an employer fires someone, and the person files for unemployment, if the company had a valid misconduct reason to terminate, and can produce documentation of this fact, then by all means the person will NOT end up with unemployment. Many people in Illinois can verify this.

In many states, the employer is required to provide a reason for termination in the form of a separation notice to the person within a certain period. But this is only in some states. This is related, in most cases, to the filing of unemployment insurance, upon which a determination is going to be made to find out from the company their reason for termination anyway.

If the company is arbitrary or petty, if they fire someone without warning for an issue beyond their control, such as absence due to illness or being hindered by the economy from making a sales quota, then the person may have a good chance to show they should be approved for benefits as they are out of work through no fault of their own.

But what IL unemployment is telling you in the initial determination is that you did not work at the new job long enough to have qualifying wages in the base period used to set up a claim using any wages from this new employer. This means that if your claim is approved, it will not at this time affect the last company's unemployment tax rate. The claim will be based on his former employer. That is just in the setting up of the claim

The reason you left that next-to-last employer, which was that you quit to accept another job may or may not get you approved for benefits. A voluntary quit from the official separating employer will likely mean that the claim is NOT approved for unemployment benefits.

In order for the separation decision to be based on the last employer, there would be something called "re-earnings," a certain amount that the person would have to have made from the new employer that will determine whether the decision to grant benefits is based on this last job or his previous one.

If you have enough earnings at the new job to have the decision made on it, then you have a very good chance to be approved for benefits. Because performance issues, particularly during the probationary period, are not usually considered misconduct. If the employee was trying his best, he made an effort to get the problems with the equipment resolved, and they decided to just go on and terminate him anyway, this is usually an approved separation which will allow you to get benefits.

If you had the ability to do the job faster, had on some occasions demonstrated that you could do the job well enough, if you could have done the job to their satisfaction, but chose instead to spend your work time surfing the internet or sleeping under the desk, this would be "fired for poor performance" that bleeds over into misconduct. If you say, "I did the job to the best of my abilities and I still could not please the employer," and the employer cannot provide proof to the contrary, (such as video of you sleeping or goofing off) then the termination for perfomance would probably be ajudicated to be non-misconduct and your claim would be approved.

As for termination for performance issues during the probationary period, it is fully legal, and they can most certainly do it if they want to. True, termination for performance issues will probably cause the person to be approved for unemployment benefits, but if the company thinks they've made a bad hire, this is by far the wisest course for them to take. There has been little money paid out to the possible problem person, very little time and annoyance spent on discipline and counseling and trying to tweak the performance, fewer hard feelings, no foul, no fault. And no wrongful termination.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Escuuuuuse me? Did you just say...oh well, yeah, you did say that.

"It's just like unemployment - despite the law, even when a company has good reason to fire someone - that person always ends up with unemployment"

When you get hired, it's called getting employment, so when you get fired, you must get unemployment.

If you're lucky, you'll get unemployment compensation too.

 

[commentator]

Or unemployment benefits. Or unemployment insurance Good point, though. He certainly will end up with unemployment (as a condition!)

 

[witzeroni]

Thanks commentator and SteveF - I must admit what you guys claim make sense. I think though it would be somewhat shocking if I don't get unemployment benefits. I have 4 kids - possibly because the company let me go before I made enought I may be out of luck here, you claim? That would really suck.

I will say this though, and at least this is how it works in Illinois: the goverment doesn't want to be responsible for you and that's why they make businesses pay unemployment. My father in law, is recently retired, but he was in charge of firing at a fairly large corporation. He said even when they thought they had the best reason in the world for firing somebody, even if unemployment was denied the first time, that person would reapply and about 90 % of the time eventually get it.

I've never been unemployed for less then 3 months since the age of 23 (am now 40). I've been laid off once prior after 3.5 years doing what I do now and my shortest job previously was 2 years (the job I left), and now this company is going to claim poor performance after the technical interviewing and all of that. Does that not sound a little bit fishy???

 

[commentator]

Witzeroni -- come back and talk to us again when you get your decision on unemployment approval. We'll see what we can do with it. But yes, I sadly fear that if the use the reason for separation from the next-to-last job, you may not be approved. The decision to leave that job was yours, not theirs.

By the way, have you talked to them about coming back to work for them?
That might work out.

It is possible that your new company discovered, for reasons you are totally unaware of, that they could not afford you, that they did not have the ability to fix the equipment and didn't want to be reminded of it, or had some big contract fall through. Don't take it too awfully terribly personal, though they did the termination in a lousy way that hurt your feelings. You know whether or not you were doing your best. You may have avoided a terrible experience by not working for them very long.

Unfortunately, unemployment insurance is not based on need. They're not going to help you because you need help. It's not welfare, and they don't inquire about your income or circumstances.

It is going to take a while to get a determination on whether or not you are eligible, and even best case, it will be several weeks before you receive any checks. They've got to do the process.

But as I said, come back and let us walk you through the process. We can possibly help you figure out how it is going and if you have an appeal. Be sure you keep repeating, "I did the job to the best of my abilities."
Have check stubs or earnings records that show the exact gross income you have made working for the new employer, ready to give that information to the unemployment office when it is requested.

Also, tell your father-in-law that if he will come on line here, all us folks would probably be able to help him. He must have some poor HR processes that we could help him refine a little so that everyone he fires doesn't eventually get approved. While it is true that the barriers are lower in some states, some are "claimant" friendly and some are "employer" friendly, it is not true that you can't fire someone for cause and keep them from getting benefits!

 

[pattytx]

I sit corrected.

 

[cbg]

FYI, in TEXAS the employer needs to give you a written explanation of termination, on your written request.

There is no such requirement in IL. I picked up the state from Patty's post - if you are in IL, my response re: termination documentation does not apply.

If you are under the impresssion that receiving unemployment means that your termination was illegal, you are in for an even greater shock than some of the above posters think you are.