
Can your employer fire you after you quit? - jawns
https://lifehacker.com/can-your-employer-fire-you-after-you-quit-1834123872
======
CoolGuySteve
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
Your state Department of Labor probably takes nonpayment of wages very
seriously.

~~~
CoolGuySteve
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...](https://labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/lshmpg.shtm)

~~~
bonestamp2
Ouch. Hopefully you left a factful glassdoor review for the next person.

~~~
jacquesm
Likely this comment is worth 10 glassdoor reviews, and could alert others
still working there as well to these practices.

~~~
bonestamp2
In content sure, but not in reach.

------
baddox
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?

~~~
jawns
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.

~~~
baddox
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.

~~~
jawns
What I mean is that even in an at-will state, employees have an expectation of
continued employment, unless their employer has given them a defined end date.
An employer can decide to fire an employee at any point without cause or
notice, but until that happens, the employee has an expectation that they're
going to be coming in to work and doing their job. To put it another way: Even
in at-will states, you're employed until you aren't.

But if an employer fires an employee, that upends the arrangement, whether or
not the employee was planning to stop working at future date, and whether or
not the employee has given the employer notice of that fact.

Frankly, the only reason it's considered common practice to give notice is
because there is an implicit expectation that you will continue to be employed
until your date of planned separation and can make arrangements based on that
fact. If employers regularly fired anyone who gave notice, and offered them no
severance, no one would give notice.

So, for the purposes of qualifying for unemployment benefits, it should not
matter whether you had planned to stop working for your employer on some
future date. The firing has nullified those plans. The employer has prevented
you from working until the date on which you intended to stop working, and so
it's almost nonsensical to say, "Well, now you're out of a job, but let's
treat you as if you still have a job that you're still planning to quit on the
date you specified."

------
lasereyes136
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.

~~~
paxys
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.

------
Kurtz79
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.

~~~
bluGill
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.

~~~
bryondowd
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.

~~~
gamblor956
No, what he said is true in NJ and generally all over the US.

While being "fired" is commonly used by laymen as a shorthand for being laid
off, the two have very different meanings in practice (and very different
legal consequences).

Being "fired" in the US means a termination "for cause", where cause generally
means commission of a felony, morally reprehensible acts, deception in the
hiring process, or violation of rules set forth in the employee handbook.

Being "laid off" means a termination for any reason other than for cause. For
example, if you are terminated because you are a "Bad fit", you have been laid
off, not fired.

If you asked to resign instead of being fired, it would have not affect on
your right to collect NJUI, because you wouldn't be eligible either way. No
one in their right mind would choose to resign over being laid off unless the
company was offering a termination bonus that exceeded the foregone UI.

~~~
bryondowd
I've never heard of a termination based on individual performance being called
a layoff. In fact, I'm fairly certain it's defined as a termination due to
factors outside the employee's control. A layoff is when the position itself
no longer exists due to downsizing, restructuring, etc.

Being terminated due to poor performance or a bad fit is not a layoff, by any
standard I've heard of, and some brief googling seems to support that.
Terminating an employee for being a bad fit and calling it a layoff would
almost certainly invite legal action.

But I'm no lawyer, so if you've got a source backing up the claim, I'd love to
see it and be enlightened.

~~~
gamblor956
_I 've never heard of a termination based on individual performance being
called a layoff. In fact, I'm fairly certain it's defined as a termination due
to factors outside the employee's control. A layoff is when the position
itself no longer exists due to downsizing, restructuring, etc._

You admit that you're not a lawyer, and then continue to argue about the
meaning of terms which have defined legal consequences?

Your colloquial understanding of what "layoff" means is just that--a
colloquial _but not correct_ understanding. A layoff is legally just a not-
for-cause termination of an employee by the employer. Down-sizing is a type of
termination (and a type of layoff) which usually has additional legal
requirements and consequences (mostly for the company).

 _Being terminated due to poor performance or a bad fit is not a layoff, by
any standard I 've heard of, and some brief googling seems to support that._

Cites needed. HR and legal sites only. You might be confusing the Canadian and
EU sites that pop up as the first results as authorities on US law, which is
very different. (Note: Canada _does_ define "layoff" and "termination" to mean
different things. The US does not.)

 _Terminating an employee for being a bad fit and calling it a layoff would
almost certainly invite legal action._

Literally anything can invite legal action in the US. But terminating an
employee for being a bad fit is precisely within the meaning of "layoff" and
would not result in a _successful_ legal action by the terminated employee.

 _But I 'm no lawyer, so if you've got a source backing up the claim, I'd love
to see it and be enlightened. _

I charge $600/hour, if you want cites, however, Google is free if you remember
to limit yourself to US sites. This ADP article
([https://www.adp.com/spark/articles/2018/09/firing-
employees-...](https://www.adp.com/spark/articles/2018/09/firing-employees-vs-
laying-them-off-making-the-difficult-decisions.aspx)) confusingly notes the
difference between the two from a non-legal/non-HR perspective intended for
layman employers.

------
pnw_hazor
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.

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

------
Simulacra
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.

~~~
manigandham
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.

~~~
scarface74
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.

~~~
lb1lf
Probably comes down to HR and Corp security not taking the chance.

Obviously, if you had malicious intent, you would have ample opportunity to
act before giving notice.

They just want to make sure they did what they could in case you should in
fact have malicious intent. 'Oh, we escorted him off the premises within the
hour; this one is not on us...'

~~~
Simulacra
This company was more about humiliation, they took people leaving personally,
as if it was an act of betrayal. Not a good place.

------
scarface74
Why in the world would you give an employer 60 days notice instead of the
accepted two weeks.

~~~
rwmj
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.

~~~
overcast
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.

~~~
jpambrun
I don't know US laws, but in Canada you have to give an appropriate notice
that can extend far beyond 2 weeks. Your loyalty obligations also extent after
the employment period. For instance, a dentist who gave the usual 2 weeks had
to pay 45,000$ in damage[0]. There is many more examples like that for high-
skill hard-to-replace employees.

[0][https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/rgd/2006-v36-n1-rgd01560/10...](https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/rgd/2006-v36-n1-rgd01560/1027103ar.pdf)

~~~
overcast
There is definitely no law requiring you to give any notice to an employer. I
can walk out right now if I want to. The only benefit of giving a company two
weeks, is not burning bridges. The unfortunate situation up North seems like
the classic Canadian stereotype, where you're always sorry for it somehow
being your fault.

~~~
jpambrun
That's interesting. Up here the employer still have to prove damage in court.
I can understand the reasoning. If are a the only highly specialized engineer
in a small shop, quitting unexpectedly could jeopardize the whole operation
and put more people out of work. But then again, maybe I'm just a
stereotypical Canadian ;).

~~~
overcast
If one person leaving jeopardizes the entire company, then that sounds like a
serious issue with management and the business as a whole. What if they fall
ill, or die suddenly? Everyone is replaceable.

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

~~~
chrismeller
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.

~~~
scott00
Resigning allows you to answer no to "Have you ever been fired or asked to
resign from any past position?" on future job applications.

~~~
cannonedhamster
I've been fired before. I'm up front about it when people ask. It's never been
a problem. Not sure why this is considered a stigma unless you were really
doing something wrong.

~~~
weka
Because being fired is associated with incompetence, no?

------
jjuel
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.

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

------
clubm8
>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_hazor
In at least some states, being fired for incompetence (including failing to
finish assigned tasks on-time) is not disqualifying for unemployment benefits.

------
peterkelly
“We do not accept your resignation.”

“Well _I_ don't accept your termination!”

------
RickJWagner
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.

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

