• 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.

Wrongful Termination - Manager Falsified Work Evaluation to lay me off

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

eerelations

Senior Member
They terminated soon after I turned 40 and cited performance explicitly as a reason for termination (with falsified work evaluation under the hood) this strategy enabled them to terminate without giving me a severance pay
They are not legally required to provide severance pay under any circumstances. (Unless of course you have a contract or CBA that states otherwise.)

Regarding your age, if you believe that you have enough evidence to support an age discrimination case, i.e., that they fired you specifically because you are 40+ then your next step would be to file a claim with the EEOC.
 


That's going to make an age claim difficult.
I work in a specialized field and was the only one in the entire organization doing that kind of work.They found a younger and less experienced (hence cheaper replacement).Does this help make age claim less difficult?
 
Last edited:
They are not legally required to provide severance pay under any circumstances. (Unless of course you have a contract or CBA that states otherwise.)

Regarding your age, if you believe that you have enough evidence to support an age discrimination case, i.e., that they fired you specifically because you are 40+ then your next step would be to file a claim with the EEOC.
I certainly have evidence for falsified work evaluation but I am not sure what would substantiate to prove "fired specifically because I was 40+" .I work in a specialized field and was the only one in the entire organization doing that kind of work ,they hired a younger and less experienced (hence cheaper replacement) before firing me.They made me prepare interview questions as well as conduct the interview.Once hired they made me do the knowledge transfer under the garb of "mentoring new hire". I obliged but made sure to document everything before leaving.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
It is illegal to fire you because you are over 40.

It is NOT illegal to fire you because someone who is under 40 will do the same job for less money.

At least initially, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it was due to your age and not due to the cost.
 
It is illegal to fire you because you are over 40.

It is NOT illegal to fire you because someone who is under 40 will do the same job for less money.

At least initially, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it was due to your age and not due to the cost.
Got it,looks like it essentially boils down to an employer can easily go scott free with any level of employee harassment or discrimination.The laws are there just to shield the employers and now it makes lot of sense why my ex manager put such a bold face without even the slightest fear of wrong doing.Add to this there is data that suggests EEOC failed to find discrimination in 87 percent of the almost 1.9 million cases filed by discrimination victims over the last 21-year-period and once the EEOC has determined there is no reasonable cause for discrimination, the EEOC sends complainants a “right to sue” letter.Apparently a victim may as well be shooting his own foot if he dares to complain.
 

eerelations

Senior Member
Got it,looks like it essentially boils down to an employer can easily go scott free with any level of employee harassment or discrimination.The laws are there just to shield the employers and now it makes lot of sense why my ex manager put such a bold face without even the slightest fear of wrong doing.Add to this there is data that suggests EEOC failed to find discrimination in 87 percent of the almost 1.9 million cases filed by discrimination victims over the last 21-year-period and once the EEOC has determined there is no reasonable cause for discrimination, the EEOC sends complainants a “right to sue” letter.Apparently a victim may as well be shooting his own foot if he dares to complain.
Well, I personally wouldn't put it quite that way myself, but yes, essentially that's how employment law works in the US. If you don't like that, it's perhaps time to speak to your Congressperson about how to change the law.
 

commentator

Senior Member
File your claim for unemployment. Move forward and find another job. Any age discrimination complaint you might want to pursue is going to take a long time and have a very limited potential for success. Unemployment is immediate and is designed to tide you over until you find another job if you are out of work through no fault of your own.

From the sound of it, you have been let go under this sort of circumstances. "Laid off" for performance issues means they just wanted to get rid of you, but perhaps aren't going to officially terminate you, so you'd likely qualify for unemployment benefits without a struggle. That you had just turned 40 happens to be a coincidence, or maybe not, which correlated with the fact that they wanted you gone. And once you are no longer working at a place, your performance evaluations at that place don't matter at all. They very rarely have to give anyone a severance if they don't want to. Sounds like they found a way to deny yours. One thing I've noticed, that in the highly technical, very specialized fields and jobs, many times they'll get rid of a long term employee to replace with not just a cheaper employee, but an employee with fresher technical skills. This doesn't necessarily mean younger.

If there is not a pattern of such behavior, if they have other employees that they did not lay off/downsize/ find redundant/ let go when they became older, that's really going to reduce your chances of showing any kind of age related bias. In most cases, "they can't do this to me, can they?" can pretty much be answered by, "Yes, they can" because really, though most people don't realize it until it happens to them, there's usually no labor law that says they cannot, unless you are covered by a union agreement giving you this specific protection.
 
Well, I personally wouldn't put it quite that way myself, but yes, essentially that's how employment law works in the US. If you don't like that, it's perhaps time to speak to your Congressperson about how to change the law.
One can put it any witch way,no amount of euphemism would change the truth.With so much leeway for the defendant to tamper the truth and easily justify a wrong doing while putting the burden of proof on the plaintiff.The chances of justice are zero for a common man and fight for justice will mostly end-up being counter productive and by the way its just not the employment law which is rotten and Congressperson is jollywell aware of it.
 
File your claim for unemployment. Move forward and find another job. Any age discrimination complaint you might want to pursue is going to take a long time and have a very limited potential for success. Unemployment is immediate and is designed to tide you over until you find another job if you are out of work through no fault of your own.

From the sound of it, you have been let go under this sort of circumstances. "Laid off" for performance issues means they just wanted to get rid of you, but perhaps aren't going to officially terminate you, so you'd likely qualify for unemployment benefits without a struggle. That you had just turned 40 happens to be a coincidence, or maybe not, which correlated with the fact that they wanted you gone. And once you are no longer working at a place, your performance evaluations at that place don't matter at all. They very rarely have to give anyone a severance if they don't want to. Sounds like they found a way to deny yours. One thing I've noticed, that in the highly technical, very specialized fields and jobs, many times they'll get rid of a long term employee to replace with not just a cheaper employee, but an employee with fresher technical skills. This doesn't necessarily mean younger.

If there is not a pattern of such behavior, if they have other employees that they did not lay off/downsize/ find redundant/ let go when they became older, that's really going to reduce your chances of showing any kind of age related bias. In most cases, "they can't do this to me, can they?" can pretty much be answered by, "Yes, they can" because really, though most people don't realize it until it happens to them, there's usually no labor law that says they cannot, unless you are covered by a union agreement giving you this specific protection.
To me it was clearly a case of retaliation.Nominally hiring someone to terminate one's employment is outrageous,calling it a harassment is just an understatement.It amounts to murdering one's soul especially after giving a decade's worth of your life and blood to the employer.The company's employee handbook talks something about severance pay upon termination of employment by terminating employment on performance grounds the employer is no longer obligated to provide severance pay and the final year's bonus.Most employers use this as a strategy to deny severence pay to make it look like we are not responsible to pay severance for a poorly performing employee.Fortunately I didn't find the need to file a claim for unemployment as I found a better job right away.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Retaliation for what? What did you do for which they felt they had to retaliate?
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
To me it was clearly a case of retaliation.Nominally hiring someone to terminate one's employment is outrageous,calling it a harassment is just an understatement.It amounts to murdering one's soul especially after giving a decade's worth of your life and blood to the employer.The company's employee handbook talks something about severance pay upon termination of employment by terminating employment on performance grounds the employer is no longer obligated to provide severance pay and the final year's bonus.Most employers use this as a strategy to deny severence pay to make it look like we are not responsible to pay severance for a poorly performing employee.Fortunately I didn't find the need to file a claim for unemployment as I found a better job right away.
The employer wasn't obligated to pay you severance as an employee handbook is not a contract. You have a better job...so stop whining already.
 
Retaliation for what? What did you do for which they felt they had to retaliate?
Its not simplistic to answer this since the corporate world is not simplistic ,it has people in power with complex and highly inflated egos and speaking one's mind often puts one in trouble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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