• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Let Go After Hurricane Irma, but was never told? PLEASE HELP!

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

ConcernedDad84

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

My daughter worked for a vet clinic part time before hurricane Irma. After the storm, her boss continuously told her that they had volunteers working since the storm, but once they left, they would put her back on the schedule. She continued to bring her pets to the pet clinic since employees got a discount. She never filed for unemployment because they told her that they would be putting her back on the schedule. After 2 months, she found another part time job, but continued to think she would eventually also work part time at the vet clinic, since the new job, a tutoring gig, was only a couple hours late afternoon. She continued to bring her pets in for check-ups but they didn't give her a bill because they said they had to get together the employee discount. This week, she brought her dog in, and they handed her a bill for over $600 for all the visits since Irma, saying she wasn't an employee so she doesn't get a discount, even though they never officially let her go. Does she have any sort of legal action?
 
Last edited:


Just Blue

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

My daughter worked for a vet clinic part time before hurricane Irma. After the storm, her boss continuously told her that they had volunteers working since the storm, but once they left, they would put her back on the schedule. She continued to bring her pets to the pet clinic since employees got a discount. She never filed for unemployment because they told her that they would be putting her back on the schedule. After 2 months, she found another part time job, but continued to think she would eventually also work part time at the vet clinic, since the new job, a tutoring gig, was only a couple hours late afternoon. She continued to bring her pets in for check-ups but they didn't give her a bill because they said they had to get together the employee discount. This week, she brought her dog in, and they handed her a bill for over $600 for all the visits since Irma, saying she wasn't an employee so she doesn't get a discount, even though they never officially let her go. Does she have any sort of legal action?
Does your daughters pet/s have medical issues that require a lot of "check ups"?
 

HRZ

Senior Member
Your daughter gets an F at common sense -she was entitled to seek UC when they stopped paying her ( If she had enough covered time/quarters to qualify ) If the clinic was back up running and she was not scheduled within a few weeks ..she was not going to be scheduled...

She as a bit of a point that they led her to believe she as still an employee ..just awaiting a reschedule time after a major storm , and she relied upon that employee status to her detriment as to employee discounts ..and I think everyone might be smart to settle the vet bill for payment in hand for the employee discount amount --look up if FL follows the satisfaction and accord principles used in many states IE tender of an amount you consider due as to a disputed debt that is clearly marked as full satisfaction of all the debts.

But that's just a lay view from afar...
 

commentator

Senior Member
If she was only working part time at the vet clinic, she may not be able to draw very much unemployment, even if she still has monetary eligibility. The maximum in Florida is $275 a week. For part time work, she won't qualify for much if she does have eligibility. She should, of course, have filed as soon as she was off the schedule, regardless of whether they said they'd "put her back on" at some point. Any week your employer does not have work for you through no fault of your own, you should file, whether or not they're going to call you back. That's irrelevant to whether or not they were promising her the employee discount for vet services.

At this point, the quarters counted for unemployment purposes may be too few, they'd go back eighteen months from now, at least one quarter has dropped, depending on what her work situation has been for a long time. But there's no reason she shouldn't file now, based on the lack of work after Hurricane Irma. If she was let go due to the storm, she might have a claim for a small amount, and she might be able to draw it for a little while right now. From the sound of it, she might not be working now for a covered employer, with the tutoring, and it certainly doesn't sound like much of a job. Is she by any chance a student or something?
That would be a factor regarding unemployment eligibility. But she should check it out.

As for their telling her they'd give her a discount as an employee, and now deciding not to do so, I think that's pretty much of a skeevy piece of dealing on their part. Totally unrelated to unemployment insurance. I think as it was suggested that she should offer them what the bill might've been if she had been receiving the employee discount, and see if they're willing to really press to collect what they are saying is the actual amount she owes, receiving no discount. I'd also find another vet to use, I think.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Oddly enough, no law exists that requires an employer to tell an employee that they have been let go.

I imagine that in the confusion following the storm, they anticipated bringing employees back and eventually determined that they could not. I don't know of any legal basis she has for disputing the bill, but she should discuss the possibility with an employment attorney anyway, IMO. If we had a similar situation happen, we'd write off the discount that was given her while telling her they'd be bringing her back.

For future reference, and I'm not blaming either you or your daughter for not knowing this but for the future, any time you are off work with no firm date for recall, even if it's only for a week, apply for unemployment. There is no requirement that someone say the words, "You're fired" or even, "I'm sorry but we're going to have to let you go" before you can apply. If you're not working and it's not your choice to not be working, apply for unemployment. If you end up going back to work, no harm done. If you don't, you've got those benefits coming in.

Just so it's clear what I am saying, it is LEGAL for them to now be telling her she has been let go. As far as I know, and I'm sure someone else will tell me if I'm wrong, it is legal (though I'm not going to say anything about ethical or moral) for them now to retroactively charge her for the employee discount. But legal or not, I don't see any reason for her not to dispute it under the circumstances. She might at the very least be able to negotiate it down. That's a really crappy thing for her employer to be doing.
 

HRZ

Senior Member
For bargaining purposes , unless it has changed , FL does recognize accord and satisfaction --and I think a good faith tender of an amount equal to the employee discount bill makes some sense here (as a suggestion,) read it and get the points right. ( Often done with a clearly marked statement on check that endorsing / cashing same is in full satisfaction and accord of X,YX disputed matters) Remember there is a dispute if employee discount applies...stick to point that might work

2011 Florida Statutes
Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS
Chapter 673
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
Entire Chapter
SECTION 3111
Accord and satisfaction by use of instrument.
673.3111 Accord and satisfaction by use of instrument.—
(1) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that that person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim, that the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute, and that the claimant obtained payment of the instrument, the following subsections apply.
(2) Unless subsection (3) applies, the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), a claim is not discharged under subsection (2) if either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) applies:
(a) The claimant, if an organization, proves that:
1. Within a reasonable time before the tender, the claimant sent a conspicuous statement to the person against whom the claim is asserted that communications concerning disputed debts, including an instrument tendered as full satisfaction of a debt, are to be sent to a designated person, office, or place; and
2. The instrument or accompanying communication was not received by that designated person, office, or place.
(b) The claimant, whether or not an organization, proves that, within 90 days after payment of the instrument, the claimant tendered repayment of the amount of the instrument to the person against whom the claim is asserted. This paragraph does not apply if the claimant is an organization that sent a statement complying with subparagraph (a)1.
(4) A claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim.
History.—s. 2, ch. 92-82.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top