Can your employer fire you after you quit?

https://lifehacker.com/can-your-employer-fire-you-after-you-quit-1834123872

by jawns • 7 years ago

72 151 7 years ago

lifehacker.com

hsnewman• 7 years ago

I have always wondered if you see a termination in the future can you trump it by submitting a 6 month resignation...

notauser• 7 years ago

Quite possibly.

I'm a line manager and amicable resignations are much cheaper than terminations when you add up goodwill, management time, and direct costs.

chrismeller3• 7 years ago

Of course you can tell them that you're leaving in 6 months. Whether or not they accept that is really up to them... I'm also not sure what resigning to avoid being terminated would get you, since, depending upon the termination reason, you would be eligible for unemployment benefits but those wouldn't apply at all if you were to resign.

scott003• 7 years ago

Resigning allows you to answer no to "Have you ever been fired or asked to resign from any past position?" on future job applications.

wccrawford• 7 years ago

I would bet it depends on just how much the company wants to get rid of you. If they're on the fence, they might just wait out the 6 months. If they want you gone immediately, the trick isn't going to work.

And if they have a policy of locking you out as soon as you give notice, it's not going to matter either way.

pnw_hazor4• 7 years ago

Why would you do that?

scarface747• 7 years ago

Why in the world would you give an employer 60 days notice instead of the accepted two weeks.

rwmj• 7 years ago

Presumably because you (unlike the employer in this case) aren't a nasty person and would like to let your employer have time to hand over and tidy up tasks, hire or train a replacement and so on.

chipgap98• 7 years ago

2 weeks is the standard amount of notice to give to employers and I think part of that reason is that companies may let you go if you give them too much notice. Sure there are situations where more may be warranted, but 2 months notice is long enough that it doesn't make sense to staff you on new projects or give you new responsibilities.

overcast4• 7 years ago

You don't owe the company you work for anything. You worked, in exchange for money. End of transaction. Two weeks is being courteous, sixty days is being ridiculous. See the comment below, where Microsoft guards escort you out two days after giving them two weeks notice. This is not unique to MS. Do companies normally give you 14-60 days to find a new job before firing you? Nope.

scarface747• 7 years ago

A two weeks notice is the accepted norm in the US. If you are moving to a new company, they also expect to you start within two to four weeks.

If it takes more than two to four weeks to transfer knowledge, both you and your management are doing it wrong.

You as employee should be cross training and knowledge sharing on an ongoing basis. If you are the only one that understands a process, that means you will be stuck on it forever. The person who puts themself in a position to never get fired also can’t be promoted. From a short term view, you also can never take a vacation without worrying about being called and interrupted because you are the only person that knows how the process works.

On an employer side, you should insist on knowledge sharing and cross training in case an employee “gets hit by the lottery bus”.

__s• 7 years ago

I was giving my employer a couple months notice. They decided to get mad that I was resigning. So I made it two weeks notice instead

vorpalhex• 7 years ago

It's not uncommon if you're in charge of critical projects that you give your employer an extended window before you leave so that they have a real chance to hire someone to replace you and you can get them up to some kind of functional speed.

scarface747• 7 years ago

What would happen if you get hit by a bus? Any employee can be replaced. The concept of a corporation is that it should be able to survive as a separate entity outside of an individual.

Would the company be concerned about you or your financial obligations if they decided to lay you off?

Yes out of courtesy I’ve helped former coworkers by answering questions. But I’ve slso made myself available on a contract basis to a former company.

tallanvor• 7 years ago

It could be that you're required to do so in your contract in order to have vacation/sick days paid out. I had one employer who required a 1 month notice. Unfortunately such requirements are legal in some states.

And although obviously not the case in this instance, 2 weeks isn't the norm in every country. I have to give 3 months notice in Norway.

scarface747• 7 years ago

It’s been years since I worked at a company that had separate sick and vacation time - it’s usually just one paid time off bucket. But if I remember correctly, companies don’t usually pay out for unused sick time, just unused vacation.

But most of the time, I’ve used most of my vacation time between actual vacations, interview prep and interviewing by the time I leave.

docdeek• 7 years ago

In France the notice period is generally three months, though that can be negotiated if your company is not stressed about replacing you. Two weeks would be very, very unusual here, though.

LandR• 7 years ago

Most positions in the UK will have at least a month notice.

I have a friend whos notice is 12 months.

At my last job they tried to convince us to accept 3 months notice, this was for even junior developers.

scarface747• 7 years ago

I’ve seen the affects of that from some of my coworkers in India. It makes job mobility much harder and it benefits the employer much more than the employee.

kevin_b_er• 7 years ago

They mistakenly treated the corporation as a person, which noone should do. The corporation is accurately modeled as a sociopath. They misassumed the corporation would have the same honorable intent they did. They've hopefully learned their lesson.

sokoloff2• 7 years ago

At higher levels, it's customary to offer far more than 2 weeks. At senior-director/VP, I'd expect 2-3 months (both to be offered by employees and for me to offer to my boss/company).

greenyoda• 7 years ago

It's ridiculous for a company that can fire an employee with no notice at all to expect an employee to give them 2-3 months of notice, no matter how high-level the employee is. If your company needs such a long notice period, they should negotiate a contract with the employee that gives the employee similar protections, e.g., a 2-3 month notice before they can be fired (or at least a guarantee to pay salary and benefits for the entire notice period, even if the company hires a replacement after a couple of weeks).

Simulacra3• 7 years ago

I worked at a Microsoft affiliate a few years back, and it was common knowledge that if you put in your two weeks notice, a couple of days later armed security would come and escort you out.

justin66• 7 years ago

a Microsoft affiliate

What is that?

Simulacra3• 7 years ago

Telemarketing for O365, etc.

manigandham5• 7 years ago

Other than armed security, this is common in many sectors where you will be walked out the same day. You'll get paid as expected but won't have access. It's not worth the potential data and customer risk to companies once you've stated your intent to leave.

scarface747• 7 years ago

How are you any more of a risk after you let them know of your intent to leave than before you let them know? You had an intent to leave the minute you started looking for a job.

If you wanted to harm the company, you wouldn’t have given them notice.

avinium• 7 years ago

Which just proves that BigCo policies are written by bozos.

All this means is that people take all the customer data before you submit your notice.

Different story if someone's fired for cause, of course.

pnutjam6• 7 years ago

I believe an employer sending you home after you give notice still has to pay you for your notice period, as long as it is a notice period they asked for in their company policies.

This is why I won't give extended notice.

baddox3• 7 years ago

It sounds like the person received unemployment benefits until their intended resignation date. That seems fair, right? You certainly wouldn’t receive unemployment benefits after you resigned. As for wrongful termination, I don’t know the law behind that, but this certainly doesn’t obviously seem wrongful to me. What am I missing?

chrismeller3• 7 years ago

Yeah, that's the way I read it. Though they didn't specify, I assumed they gave the 60 days notice because they had a new job that, for whatever reason, was slated to start on January 1st. I don't think I'd ever have given that much notice (unless it was for some reason legally required) for specifically this reason. Either way, even if I didn't have any new employment lined up, I would have expected to collect my remaining paychecks and then that would be that - no unemployment at all.

Aside from a little extra cash (since the unemployment they did get wouldn't have been anywhere near the amount their paychecks would have been for) I'm also not really sure what the end goal here is... just put this crappy employer behind you and move on.

scott003• 7 years ago

Unemployment benefits are likely to be substantially less than wages. In Massachusetts, unemployment benefits are about 50% of wages, with a cap of $795 per week (which works out to an annualized rate of $41,340/year). So the employee is probably in worse financial shape than they expected to be.

IMO, the issue here isn't wrongful termination, it's providing false information to the state. Firing someone because they intend to resign in the future is probably legal, but it doesn't change the fact that they were fired. It sounds like the employer reported that they resigned, which simply isn't true.

baddox3• 7 years ago

There’s no question that unemployment benefits are worse for that employee than their full employment benefits, and that extended unemployment benefits are better for the employee than them ending on January 1.

I just don’t think that’s a sufficient argument for saying that the employee is entitled to those things legally or ethically.

lasereyes1362• 7 years ago

The post said they were fired without cause. I don't know about Massachusetts but in right to work states, people can be fired without a reason or a notice period, and it is up to the person to prove there was a reason that is illegal.

jawns2• 7 years ago

I think the employee made a mistake by giving 60 days notice; generally, that is only called for in very senior-level positions. Beyond that, the employeee didn't have another job lined up. So (at least from the employer's point of view) it seems as if the employee intended to use those 60 days to find another job, and I think an employer could reasonably assume that they would not be putting in their all during that time, so best to cut the line.

All that said, it's not fair for the fired employee to receive unemployment benefits only until the date on which they would have stopped working if they had not been fired.

Unemployment assistance is a public benefit that people (generally) qualify for if they are fired without cause; it helps them get by until they are able to find another job. You can qualify for unemployment assistance even if your work has a defined end date. I have a buddy who works on film sets, so his jobs typically last 4-5 months. But even if the film is scheduled to wrap up filming in a week, he would still qualify for unemployment if he were let go, and not just for the single week he would have been working.

The implicit understanding of giving notice is, "I intend to work for you until this date." But if the employer fires them prior to that date, it totally invalidates whatever notice was given.

Keep in mind that date of notice and date of separation are different. Between those two dates, the employee has the same expectation of employment, and the public benefits associated with it, as any other employee. If you get fired prior to your date of departure, whether or not you have given your employer the courtesy of notice, then you should qualify for the same unemployment benefits as someone who has not given the courtesy of notice.

Think about it. It would really suck if Employee A and Employee B both intend to stop working two weeks from now; Employee A is a jerk and plans to give no notice; Employee B is nice and gives two weeks' notice; both employees are fired without cause several days later; and Employee A gets at most 10 days' worth of unemployment benefits, while Employee B gets the standard 6 months.

baddox3• 7 years ago

I’m not saying you’re wrong legally, but I don’t quite follow your argument. You say “between those two dates, the employee has the same expectation of employment” but then immediately follow it up by saying that the unemployment benefits should extend indefinitely outside of that date range.

You may be right legally, I really couldn't say, but it makes perfect sense to me that the unemployment benefits would extend only to the announced separation date.

pnutjam6• 7 years ago

I agree, you should follow the procedures outlined in your employee handbook. Give them exactly the notice they ask for, otherwise you have no legal protection in a case like this. They were certainly within their rights to fire him (legally), but I disagree about the unemployement insurance. Giving longer then standard notice is just not a smart move in today's climate.

kmlx• 7 years ago

i fire people who don’t work for me all the time :)

Kurtz79• 7 years ago

Funny. In Spain (and I'm sure other countries) you are owed severance pay and can claim unemployment benefits in case your employer fires you/laids you off, but not in case you resign on your own.

Few employers would "fire" an employee resigning (also, "asking" to be fired is highly illegal), unless he/she were a very recent hire for which severance pay would be low.

lucozade• 7 years ago

In Europe, we don't really have the concept of at-will employment so an employer can't legally terminate your employment without a good reason. And resigning isn't usually classed as a good reason.

I'm not sure about Spain, but in the UK there is a difference between being fired i.e. terminated with cause and laid off i.e. made redundant.

In the former, I don't believe there's any requirement for severance. In the latter there is a statutory minimum severance.

Also, if you're actually fired, your rights to unemployment benefits change. Usually some form of delay and/or reduction.

DanBC• 7 years ago

Isn't it a bit more complicated in England? An employee who's been working for the company for less than two years is fired for anything but reasons connected to protected characteristics doesn't have any recourse if they're fired. The employer doesn't need to give a reason.

chasedehan• 7 years ago

It’s common in the US to be asked to leave when you give notice. One place I worked had security escort people out of the building by the end of the day they gave notice.

I also worked in restaurants through college and while you weren’t asked to leave, you were taken off the schedule and not given any shifts.

(edit) The security walking out wasn't this big show of force, it was mostly to turn in laptop, badge, etc. Security was nice about it, but it was still security (end edit)

maxxxxx3• 7 years ago

I don’t get the whole being walked out by security thing. It seems just an unnecessary show of force or humiliation without any benefit. If a person had wanted to do danger then they could have done that easily before putting in notice. It makes no sense.

clubm82• 7 years ago

It’s common in the US to be asked to leave when you give notice. One place I worked had security escort people out of the building by the end of the day they gave notice.

Yes, but they usually pay you for the two weeks. Not summarily fire you and report that you were fired to future employers. (At least in IT)

bluGill5• 7 years ago

In the US fired means for cause. When you are fired they are legally saying you are a bad employee and they can/will tell others not to hire you. This implies they can not give your severance because the time you "worked" for them without doing your job is your severance. You don't get unemployment because you were not actually working. Contrast this with laid off which means you were a good employee, they just don't need you anymore: you can get severance (if there is any, it is not required).

If/when you employer is going to fire you ask if you can resign on the spot instead. Most will say yes: because you resigned of your own violation you cannot sue them, but in turn when someone checks references they will carefully say "yes s/he worked here, s/he left in good report, we have nothing more to say", which doesn't look bad.

Cthulhu_• 7 years ago

In my country (Netherlands) there's some strict laws around firing; the situation you described (being a bad employee and getting fired on the spot) only applies for a few cases; refusal to work (without good reason, probably the most up for debate reason), theft, fraud, or severe incompetence. The other cases though require a more formal release procedure and compensation.

However, to work around that some companies get up to some really scummy practices. Multinationals especially, they can just let a company go bankrupt so there's no way for employees to get anything.

garmaine3• 7 years ago

You don't get unemployment because you were not actually working

Nope. You have to get fired (with or without cause, doesn’t matter) to collect unemployment in most US jurisdictions.

bryondowd2• 7 years ago

This just isn't true, at least in New Jersey. For NJ Unemployment, being fired only renders you ineligible if you are fired for misconduct, which is further defined as requiring intent or sufficient negligence to imply a disregard for the job. Meanwhile, employers aren't limited to firing you for misconduct or layoffs. You can be fired because you're just not a good fit for the team/position. In that case, you are eligible for unemployment because you didn't quit but didn't commit misconduct. If you asked to resign instead of being fired, you'd be giving up your right to collect NJUI.

I can't speak for other states, but I'd be surprised if NJ is entirely unique.

pnutjam6• 7 years ago

I don't think that would help you in most circumstances. I know when I worked for HP, they had a policy of only confirming the dates of employment. Beyond that, I think some employers will indicate if an employee is rehirable, which I'd guess your not if you were getting fired.

BrandoElFollito• 7 years ago

In France (and I belive everywhere in Europe) your employer is not allowed to comment on your employment at all.

The only thing they can confirm is that you were employed, from when to when, and the position you had. Full stop.

Not your salary, not whether you were "good" or not, nothing. They can of course tell w great your were if you explicitly allow them.

mrweasel• 7 years ago

Similar in Denmark. I've had a co-workers that wanted to quit do to personal reasons. Our boss opted to fire him instead, so he be able to collect a severance pay (I think three month of pay).

jjuel• 7 years ago

So wait this person was going to quit, but then got fired. So after getting fired they receive unemployment benefits which they would not have received otherwise (obviously they would have gotten fully paid for 60 days). But now are mad that the unemployment isn't lasting past the 60 days (in which after 60 days fired or resigned they wouldn't have gotten anything anyway). I guess I just don't understand what this plan was. Were they hoping to just milk out 60 more days worth of pay, and then travel or something. It appears there was no plan of a new postition lined up at all.

So we may not be getting a whole story here and I would like to know the whole story. Sure it seems bad by the employer, but we still are unsure of what the employee was planning here either. Maybe after 2 days of working after giving 60 days they weren't performing their duties anymore so they fired them. They could have been just hoping to get 2 months worth of pay, but been not expected to do anything since they were leaving. I can't make any assumptions, but without a full story this is impossible to judge who is truly in the wrong.

I actually once put in two weeks for a job, and then later when the CTO found out he said they didn't accept and I was asked to leave before 2 weeks. I, however, never thought of that as being fired, and I was leaving for a better position so it was no skin off my back. I just got a break between jobs I may not have had before.

pnutjam6• 7 years ago

Maybe he was due to vest something after those 60 days?

peterkelly• 7 years ago

“We do not accept your resignation.”

“Well I don't accept your termination!”

lasereyes1362• 7 years ago

The best thing for the employer to do would be to accept the resignation with only 2 weeks notice and tell the person not to come in for the 2 weeks (and pay them for the two weeks). This assumes that the employer doesn't trust the employee and doesn't think they will behave during the time between notice and termination. If an employer things the employee will behave there is usually no harm keeping them on for the notice period. Not a lawyer this isn't legal advice, consult your lawyer before doing anything like firing an employee or accepting a termination notice for any period other than the one in the notice.

paxys3• 7 years ago

This is what usually happens. The employee is terminated everywhere but on payroll, so they can't come in, have to return all equipment, don't have any access etc. The company basically didn't want to pay those extra checks so they pulled this stunt.

CoolGuySteve4• 7 years ago

It can get a lot worse in states with onerous non-compete laws.

When I quit Tudor Investment, they forced me to work for an extra 3 months. If I didn't, they threatened to fire me 'with cause' which under NY state law means they could enforce my non-compete without paying me.

1 week before I was supposed to leave, my manager tried to sandbag me with a list of 30 tasks so that he could force me to stay longer. So I terminated my employment using the 'right to work' clause and they carried out their threat, firing me after I legally quit (twice!).

This kind of non-compete abuse is probably illegal but fighting it through arbitration would be expensive.

Those assholes still owe me money in fact. Don't ever deal with the wage thieves at Tudor Investment.

sk5t• 7 years ago

Your state Department of Labor probably takes nonpayment of wages very seriously.

CoolGuySteve4• 7 years ago

You're responsible for hiring a lawyer and suing the company if you make over $900/week, which probably every developer in NYC does.

https://labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/workpro...

olliej• 7 years ago

Generally however they don’t become liable for the time you aren’t working because you’re dealing with them, and that ignores the actual up front costs in hiring a lawyer. A lot of this theft is targeted at people who literally cannot afford to make a claim, and for some reason you can’t just report the theft to the police.

colordrops• 7 years ago

Thank you for naming names. Most people with experiences like this keep everything anonymous, leaving other people to fall into the same trap.

skohan• 7 years ago

This kind of thing makes me thankful to work in Europe

DoofusOfDeath2• 7 years ago

If I didn't, they threatened to fire me 'with cause' which under NY state law means they could enforce my non-compete without paying me.

IANAL, but might that qualify as criminal extortion?

autotune• 7 years ago

Their glassdoor rating alone would keep me away!

Fjolsvith• 7 years ago

Why not quit by sending a certified return receipt letter? Then you could prove you quit first.

CoolGuySteve4• 7 years ago

Why would it matter? I can already I prove I quit several times via email timestamps. Still doesn't mean I'll front the tens of thousands to sue.

pnw_hazor4• 7 years ago

In many states the non-compete remains in force whether you get quit or get fired.

MR4D• 7 years ago

I’m confused - why didn’t you have normal garden leave?

CoolGuySteve4• 7 years ago

In NY state, if your employer terminates you with cause then garden leave is enforced but not paid.

It's open to massive abuse, as I found out.

basetop• 7 years ago

I've heard of companies forcing you to leave early for security reasons, but I've never heard of companies forcing you to stay. That's close to blackmail, but I suspect it would be difficult and expensive to prove in court. Sorry you had to go through that.

phendrenad2• 7 years ago

Man, I'd love to hear your story from the parallel universe where you got the threat in writing, quit, they fired you with cause, you talked to a lawyer and sued them for tons of damage. But knowing how employer-favoring the legal system is, I assume I'm just daydreaming now.

TheBobinator• 7 years ago

I'm going to say 2 things here that are going to be unpopular for the HN Community, but they need to be said.

First, Non-Competes and Binding Arbitration are legal abhorrations that need to be avoided at all costs. Management is saying "You can't leave and the law doesn't exist here". Google's management, of all people, used these to sexually harass and assault their employee's. The only time signing one is advised is if you have a lawyer, that you trust and are paying, representing your interests, involved to ensure you get paid and there's no weasel words or wiggle room for game-playing. Ask them if the contract is negotiable and if you can go over it with your legal counsel; if the answer is no, you just confirmed you are walking into a company full of psychopaths that would sooner kill you and harvest your organs for a buck than treat you reasonably. There is literally no fine line or middle ground here; when these contracts are rolled out either they are negotiated in good faith or they are not.

Second, a lot of people walk into those contracts on good faith, only to find the nightmare later on. Summarizing the situatuion; the Soap Box is done and over with, the Ballot Box is already empty, and the option for a Jury Box was taken away from you, which leaves only the Ammo Box.

Prudent people will realize the only way out is to bankrupt the business and ownership through making a big mistake or error; They can't pay the arbiters if they are bankrupt and the contract terminates once they are liquidated. And remember, 90% of the reason those companes run like dogsh!t is because the staff there either have lost interest in their lives or are trying to take the place down to get out.

And if that isn't an option , There's a reason we've got a 2nd amendment in this country and nobody did this in the 50's-80's after WW2 (Ex-Soldiers have zero patience for this crap). Remember we're a jury trial country, mob rule reigns supreme, and you get to pleade your case.

pnw_hazor4• 7 years ago

If the employee's 60-day notice was non-binding or aspirational it seems to me that their unemployment benefits should not have been cut off at the 60-day mark. Because the employee always had the option to change their mind and withdraw their notice to quit.

In the unlikely case that it was impossible for the employee's employment to extend beyond the 60-day mark after giving a 60-day notice, it seems reasonable for the unemployment benefits to be cut off at the 60-day mark.

But absent some express contract term or law, just giving notice would not prevent an employee from withdrawing notice before leaving the job.

paxys3• 7 years ago

They said the company chose not to accept their resignation notice, so the dates are void anyways. It is a firing, plain and simple.

clubm82• 7 years ago

1 week before I was supposed to leave, my manager tried to sandbag me with a list of 30 tasks so that he could force me to stay

How does that work? If you don't finish them he can fire you for poor performance? I find that hard to believe.

pnw_hazor4• 7 years ago

In at least some states, being fired for incompetence (including failing to finish assigned tasks on-time) is not disqualifying for unemployment benefits.

RickJWagner• 7 years ago

I don't know how many tv shows I've seen that go like this:

Boss: "You're fired!" Worker: "You can't fire me, because I quit!"

I always thought that was an odd ordering.

Can your employer fire you after you quit?

Related Stories