Part time MBA student with agreement with company

[mdmalibu22]

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

An Arrangement to let me attend Northwestern's MBA program (in Chicago) on weekends from my job in California by way of by allowing me to use Fridays as full/partial flying days was made between my employer and myself 2 yrs ago. My job has totally changed over last year and requires a new skillset. My new boss at employer no longer likes my arrangement (was agreed upon before he was managing me) and would like to replace me, although they've been careful not to attribute it to my MBA setup obviously. My performance reviews were exceptional for 4 years but have turned average at best in last year (which I'd argue is due to them needing someone with the new required skill set who can also be there 5 days). I'm certain they're papering my file to fire me and I do not get along with my new boss.

Bottom line: I want to leave, and believe that based on the premise that the new skill set required has changed and the Friday traveling is interfering, they should have to lay me off rather than fire me, especially if I propose that tactfully and frame it as mutually benificial. I would also argue that my decrease in performance is due to the change in position that has occurred since the contract/agreement was established.

Do you think that my employer would rather lay me off than fire me and run the risk of the inherent liability?


Note: they do not deny that this agreement of traveling exists. I believe the reason they are focusing on my performance to push me out is due to their fear of liability from this agreement. Truth is, my passion and output has decreased, but I attribute it to the fact that this agreement worked originally because I was doing a job commensurate with my skills.

 

[cbg]

Then your understanding of employment law is incorrect. All they have to say is, MBA student, your services are no longer required. Here is your final check and don't let the door hit you in the keister on the way out.

 

[mdmalibu22]

Would that be considered a lay-off or firing?

 

[pattytx]

They could call it a toaster or they could call it Gary. It is the circumstances of the termination that are critical, at least for unemployment if that's what you're asking, not the word used.

Literally, a "lay-off" is a temporary cessation of employment, with the worker being retained on inactive status until recalled to work when business picks up.

Having said that, do not quit. If they want to let you go, make them let you go, however it is deemed. If you resign, your chances of getting unemployment benefits decreases to virtually nil.

Your "agreement" is subject to change at any time, unless it rises to the level of a bona fide, enforceable contract, and only a contract/employment attorney in your state could advise you after hearing all the details.

 

[mdmalibu22]

I'm in CA. Is there any way that future employers can verify with my HR whether I was laid off or fired? I've researched this and received completely mixed data on the topic.

 

[pattytx]

Of course they can. An employer can say anything that is truthful or that is their honestly held opinion.

Some employers use the phrase "lay off" for ANY separation of employment, except for firing for cause. I guess they think that makes the employee feel better or something.

 

[cbg]

Then I'll make it clear to you. After all, I've only provided this information in about 1,750 threads - what's one more?

In all 50 states, the employer may, with complete legality, provide all the specifics about the employee's termination, including, but not limited to, not only whether they were laid off or fired, but the exact reason that they were laid off or fired. It is a myth - a widely believed myth, but a myth just the same - that employers are limited to dates of employment and job title, or whatever variations of that theme you have heard.