I really don't believe this. Absolute F*CKERS!!!! A woman from the unemployment office just called to double check on my earnings from my severance, etc., and I decided to ask her if they only did these fact finding interviews (I have on on Tues.) if the employer protested the claim. She said it was an automatic thing if it was a quit or fire.
She then mentioned that in their letter to the unemployment office, my former evil company stated the reason for my lay-off as "misconduct". WTF?? I got told TO MY FACE that it had nothing to do with my performance. Does this mean that the other 3 people who got laid off the same day, were laid off due to misconduct at all? (We were all brought into the conference room, as a group, and told about the lay off).
what?!? does it say that you were layed off due to misconduct or fired due to it? Is there a difference (there should be). Either way, its complete crap!
What losers. If wanted to protest using misconduct as a reason, they shouldn't have told you all 4 at once that you were being 'laid off' with no mention of misconduct. They would have to have documentation of any 'misconduct' for that to even maybe stick.
Dumb fucks.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment ~ {Ralph Waldo Emerson}
ILoveChoo wrote: what?!? does it say that you were layed off due to misconduct or fired due to it? Is there a difference (there should be). Either way, its complete crap!
Nope, there is NOWHERE that says misconduct is the reason.
yup. they're trying to get around having to pay unemployment. what asses - I hope they get in trouble for falsifying official documents or something -- esquiress might know.
__________________
"Fashion can be bought. Style one must possess." ~ Edna Woolman Chase
yup. they're trying to get around having to pay unemployment. what asses - I hope they get in trouble for falsifying official documents or something -- esquiress might know.
At this point, it's not worth suing them over. If you get denied unemployment, that's a different story. Hopefully your evidence greatly outweighs their little "misconduct" statement in your interview with the unemployment office.
detroit wrote: yup. they're trying to get around having to pay unemployment. what asses - I hope they get in trouble for falsifying official documents or something -- esquiress might know. At this point, it's not worth suing them over. If you get denied unemployment, that's a different story. Hopefully your evidence greatly outweighs their little "misconduct" statement in your interview with the unemployment office.
just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that Carrie sue - esquiress has a background in employment law and might know if the company can get in trouble with the law for providing false information on government documents - that's all - just wishful thinking
__________________
"Fashion can be bought. Style one must possess." ~ Edna Woolman Chase
Good luck Carrie! Don't let them get to you! They're just trying to save money, it's not personal (or if it is for one or two people there, it's just sad sad SAD on their part...) Something sort of similar happened to a friend of mine whose father started a company, then died unexpectedly. I know it's hard, and I'm really sorry.
deep breaths. it's ok. yes, they're a**holes. yes, they're trying to get out of paying unemployment. no, they won't get away with it. as long as there is no written documentation, such as reprimands, or warnings or "probationary" periods of discipline for the alleged misconduct, etc., etc., their story won't hold up. if there is written documentation of this and you know it's falsified and you've never seen such docs before, just say so. as long as your signature of acknowledgement isn't on any of the alleged docs, you'll be fine. pm me if you need me and know that we're here for you. oh and blubirde's right, it's not worth it to sue right now. the only way you'd have a viable wrongful termination claim is if you got fired for being in a protected class (race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, marital status) or engaging in a protected activity (for example, "whistleblowing").
Thanks guys *deep breath*. It's apparent that this company will stop at nothing...
Suing is DEFINITELY not in the budget, so I'm not going there! I will argue this to the death though, since I know they're full of hot air on the whole thing.
I wish I could get ahold of the other 3 people that were laid off to see if they're dealing with this at all....