Its nice when someone ELSE gets fired

[CaptainChewbacca]

The disabled lady in the OP ... well, I can think of a few things she can consider for her appeal:

-Was her poor performance due to a 'skill' or 'will' problem? Was any attempt made to performance manage this long serving member of staff?

What part of '22 months late on a report' is being unclear to you? How about 'Obstructionist'? Or 'lying to her boss'?

-Was she the victim of bullying due to her disability? Did her location off-site lead to her being at a disadvantage [clearly it has since she didn't even get a chance to defend her self from the accusations in person as the employer couldn't be arsed to even visit her to sort things out].

She actually used being offsite to her advantage. She'd task multiple people to doing HER busy work, and not tell them they were all working on the same thing. When my boss discovered three different people had charged a total of 10 hours for a two-hour research project, she wasn't happy.

Also, what makes you think she was fired summarily, without redress, review, or discussion? I didn't mention it, because I'm the most junior person at my office and I'm not in on the process. And, did I mention SHE WORKS TWO HUNDRED MILES AWAY? Nobody's going to spend eight hours on a trip to tell someone she's fired.

-Has she been treated equally due to her disability [clearly she hasn't since she was going to be fired over the phone. Not even a suspension/investigatory meeting/disciplinary meeting held!]

Disciplinary meetings can be held over the phone, and in her case she generally DECLINES to have people visit her home. Again, what makes you think that she thought she was doing fine until she got fired?

-Has she been offered the same training as everyone else in the company? Has her boss supplied training to try and resolve her current performance issues [performance can be technical or emotional].{Clearly this isn't the case as the employer couldn't even be arsed sending someone to her house to fire her, let alone train her}.

SHE'S A SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER! She's supposed to know how to do all this, and she DOES do it all. She just does it her own way at her own pace and couldn't give two shits if she messes up someone else's schedules.

This is a woman who, after being confronted with the fact that she made a simple technical error in chemistry, told me 'It doesn't matter, I'm right anyway'.

I am simply astounded that your company failed to follow due process ... when dealing with a fucking disabled person. You never, ever, ever sack a disabled person without being extremely careful and by-the-book! Let me guess - the person who sacked her is a 60 year old troglodyte who votes Republican and worships Henry Ford right?

Are you some sort of idiotic shithead ambulance-chaser? You don't get to 'appeal' firings while keeping your job. I've BEEN fired before. They present you with doccumentation that you've been doing a bad job, they talk to you about shaping up and tell you what you need to do different, and if you don't then they FIRE YOUR ASS.

Is it because the woman is disabled that you believe she shits rainbows and farts sunshine, and is struggling to flourish in some sort of dickensian nightmare of a sweatshop? Or are you just reading every fifth word of my posts?

Hope your employer has deep pockets Chewie, because this woman is going to clean you out. And the negative PR that this is going to generate will hopefully result in your entire senior management getting the sack, hopefully to be replaced by some people with less antiquated views on labour relations.

In the mean time, enjoy the clusterfuck that is about to take place in your local media if this woman decides to appeal [and she will do, and she will win because you didn't follow due process and mainly because she is disabled and by God you don't fuck with disabled people in the workplace unless you have absolutely nailed the process. I am sure your CEO is going to just love your Regional VP for all of this. But hey the VP will probably be working for you Chewie once all of this is over so never mind eh? ].

Yeah, I guess you ARE a shithead. You're also the reason why frivilous lawsuits give the legal system a bad name. She didn't do her job, properly and in a timely fashion. She wasn't a team player, she wasn't honest, and she didn't follow propper procedure when dealing with county and state officials, often going over or around the chain of command to get her way. When confronted with this and instructed to fix her attitude, she didn't change her ways. This wasn't a 'bad month', this was years coming. She's NOTORIOUS with other companies for being difficult to work with. Do you know how much of a jerk you have to be for someone at the other end of the state to know you're a difficult person to work for?

At what point SHOULD she have been fired? Idiot.

[Ubiquitous]

What part of '22 months late on a report' is being unclear to you? How about 'Obstructionist'? Or 'lying to her boss'?

Has this been investigated? Has it been raised as an issue to her, in a formal manner, or is it just office heresay that the office junior just happened to overhear?

She actually used being offsite to her advantage. She'd task multiple people to doing HER busy work, and not tell them they were all working on the same thing. When my boss discovered three different people had charged a total of 10 hours for a two-hour research project, she wasn't happy.

So a Senior Manager delegates work to her underlings who suck and turn a two hour job into a ten hour one ... OH HEY, MAYBE WE SHOULD FIRE HER THEN!!!11

Also, what makes you think she was fired summarily, without redress, review, or discussion? I didn't mention it, because I'm the most junior person at my office and I'm not in on the process. And, did I mention SHE WORKS TWO HUNDRED MILES AWAY? Nobody's going to spend eight hours on a trip to tell someone she's fired.

a) So basically you are admitting that you know jack-shit about the process. Why the fuck are you wasting my time then rather than admit in my first response that you know jack shit and are just gossiping about the office rather than trying to defend your bosses actions, which you clearly know nothing about? I fucking hate wankers like you who come online and act like the big shot mocking someone who has lost their job. And as someone who has been sacked previously as you claim [geee, there's a surprise!] I thought you would have more class, but obviously you are a heartless prick.

b) The fact she lives 200 miles away MEANS JACK SHIT. If a company wants to employ someone that far away, then they must treat them exactly the same as an employee on site. Would an employee on site be sacked over the phone, or called into the managers office? Obviously the latter. So she should too. Because she has not been treated in a fair and consistent manner she has GROUNDS FOR APPEAL. So shut the fuck up you worthless, knowledgeless cunt. Don't get involved in arguments on a subject you do not fucking understand the first things about.

Disciplinary meetings can be held over the phone

NO THEY CANNOT. AGAIN, do these meetings occur over the phone in your office? NO. They happen in the managers office. So she has not been treated fair and equally. SO SHE HAS GROUNDS TO APPEAL. YOU FUCKING RETARD.

SHE'S A SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER! She's supposed to know how to do all this, and she DOES do it all.

Ah she's a manager, so the rules don't apply?! Actually, you will find that position, length of service and disability all combine to work in mitigation, particularly when there are instances of previous strong performance. She can argue this is a short term blip that she is working on. Generally, an employee who has been at a company for five years cannot be dismissed unless they have been performance managed for 18 months, and failed to improve to the agreed standards. But since your shitty backwater company doesn't even offer a personal meeting before dismissing anyone, and has no idea about how to deal with dismissals, I doubt they give a shit about these things ... well, until the court case rinses you dry.

She just does it her own way at her own pace and couldn't give two shits if she messes up someone else's schedules.

I'm going to call bullshit on any of your personal testimonials since you are the fucking office junior and your colleagues obviously have personal problems with this lady.

This is a woman who, after being confronted with the fact that she made a simple technical error in chemistry, told me 'It doesn't matter, I'm right anyway'.

Well that was stupid of her ... let's fire her!

Are you some sort of idiotic shithead ambulance-chaser? You don't get to 'appeal' firings while keeping your job. I've BEEN fired before. They present you with doccumentation that you've been doing a bad job, they talk to you about shaping up and tell you what you need to do different, and if you don't then they FIRE YOUR ASS.

Of course you don't you worthless grandstander, there is a whole process that has to be followed when dealing with disabled people who are being performance managed, which from the few things you have said on the subject seem like they don't exist in your amateur organisation. YOU said she was fired over an argument over a project, NOT about performance, you worthless backpeddling flip-flopper. Stop wasting my fucking time you prick.

Is it because the woman is disabled that you believe she shits rainbows and farts sunshine, and is struggling to flourish in some sort of dickensian nightmare of a sweatshop? Or are you just reading every fifth word of my posts?

Speechless. You obviously have no fucking clue just how well defended disabled people are in the workplace and just how complex the dismissal process is for performance issues like you have highlighed [even though you initially claimed it was a conduct matter that led to her dismissal]. But of course you don't, because you are a novice office junior who is trying to act all experienced with dismissal process, but in reality only has personal experience of dismissal being on the receiving end of losing a burger-flipping job.

Yeah, I guess you ARE a shithead.

I know that hearing that you are wrong and your company is an amateur organisation has hurt you, but really, you have no fucking clue what you are debating, do you?

You're also the reason why frivilous lawsuits give the legal system a bad name.

I am a senior manager you moron, not a lawyer. Labour laws are NOT my ally. They mean that I cannot get rid of people easily that I see non-performing/taking the piss. BUT, I do actually understand and respect the process because if I don't, not only will it be my arse in the tribunal stand, it is also my career and my company that will suffer if I fuck up.

She didn't do her job, properly and in a timely fashion. She wasn't a team player, she wasn't honest, and she didn't follow propper procedure when dealing with county and state officials, often going over or around the chain of command to get her way. When confronted with this and instructed to fix her attitude, she didn't change her ways. This wasn't a 'bad month', this was years coming. She's NOTORIOUS with other companies for being difficult to work with. Do you know how much of a jerk you have to be for someone at the other end of the state to know you're a difficult person to work for?

Yada yada yada ... office junior using second hand information as evidence he doesn't really know anything about ... stop wasting my time.

At what point SHOULD she have been fired? Idiot.

When poor performance was recognised [probably after two red quarterly performance reviews] she should have been been performance managed. It should have been made exactly clear to her what was expected. She should have been given 18 months to improve, due to her length or service, previous good performance, and seniority. Due to her disability, she should have been offered even more time to improve [not because I agree with this, but because labour laws for disabled people are different to the rest of the workforce]. She would need monthly/periodic reviews throughout the whole process. Next steps would be agreed to see what problems she faced, and how she could go about solving them. Her manager should have been working to encourage her to improve by displaying his/her leadership skills to try and pull her along. If this 'pull' didn't work, then she would have to be 'pushed'. If these steps did not work, she should have a verbal warning for performance. If that didn't improve, then she would have a written warning. If that didn't improve, then she should be dismissed IF the correct paper-trail had been actioned, and all mitigating circumstances had been taken into account [and since she worked away from the office, this would be almost impossible to do as she is at a clear disadvantage due to the geographical location involved.]

[Darth Wong]

a) So basically you are admitting that you know jack-shit about the process.

You flame an awful lot about "the process" for someone who hasn't even established that he knows anything at all about "the process" himself.

Why don't you inform us all of your thorough knowledge of hiring and firing-related laws in the state of California, which happens to be thousands of miles away and in a different country from where you live, you fucking moron? Which specific laws have been broken here? Or are you simply assuming that the procedures at your particular company apply to every company and legal jurisdiction in the world?

[Big Phil]

Ubiquitous, before you continue screeching, look up California's labor laws.

If this woman is an "at-will" employee (and if she's non-union, I guarantee she is), she can be fired at any time for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. In fact, it would be better for her employer (legally) to fire her without cause, because then she would have almost no grounds for a lawsuit. Since she was fired for cause (poor performance), she can dispute that and argue that her performance was sufficient to keep herself employed.

I've worked with lots of people over the years who were fired (or quit) in Washington State, and even had to fire two myself. Everyone I've ever seen fired has been "without cause," even if everyone knew damned well the reason they were fired was they always showed up an hour late and left an hour early, or their work product sucked, or they got into a screaming match with their manager. It's just safer, legally, to fire someone without cause.

[CmdrWilkens]

Adding on a bit more I work in four different legal jurisdictions (Maryland, DC, Georgia, and Virginia). I've had t fire folks in two of those jurisdicitons and should I have to do so in all four I can tell you that I don't need to justify myself to anything other than my company's written policies of employment. The states (and DC) place no burden on my firing of an employee save that if it was for no cause then the company has to pay unemployment benfits. Simply put the ONLY thing stopping me from firing every employee I don't think is up to snuff is the written garuntees in the employee handbook (which does also remind folks that employment is "at will"). I could go in to work tomorrow, find that one of my associates had lied about something minor and I would be answerable only to my boss if I fired that person after documenting the incident and filling out the appropriate paperwork.

Seriously Ubiquitous you have shown less than zero comprehension of how non-contract and non-union labor works in the vast majority of the United States (there are something like 4 right to work states left IIRC)

[Enigma]

Ubiquitous is living in La La land. I've been fired a couple of times (one had a legit reason and the other pure BS to cover the fact that the company was floundering) here in Ottawa and I can tell you they can and will fire you with little or no reason. Unless of course you are part of a union then it'll take a while to fire that person.

[Edi]

I am a senior manager you moron, not a lawyer.

That's pretty goddamn obvious, and you're also showing precisely the kind of incompetence here that comes from some moron who thinks his title is applicable directly in another country. If you were a lawyer, you'd fucking well understand that UK laws do not apply in the US unless the corresponding US laws were written exactly the same. Which they are not. I've rarely seen such stupidity as you displayed there.

[General Zod]

Let's take a look at California employment law, shall we?

In California, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it's not illegal. Generally, employees that work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In California, the at-will presumption can be overcome by evidence that despite the absence of a specified term of employment, the parties agreed who the employer's power to terminate would be limited in some way.

Here's the rules regarding what employers in the state of California cannot fire you for:

Discrimination and Wrongful Termination

Employers are not allowed to terminate or discriminate against employees for the following reasons:

* Age
* Race
* Sex
* Religion
* National origin
* Disability
* Pregnancy

It's illegal for an employer to consider these characteristics with regard to:

* Promotions
* Job assignments
* Termination
* Wages

And it's illegal for an employer to terminate an employee:

* For refusing to break a law
* In retaliation for filing a discrimination or safety claim
* For taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act
* Without following its own stated procedure or policy
* For reasons not contained in the employment contract, if one exist

In short, Ubiquitous is being a blubbering vagina who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

[Uraniun235]

The question of interest here is whether Ubiquitous is angry that a poor disabled woman just wasn't given enough chances, or whether he's bitter because UK law forces him to go through a much more involved runaround procedure that reads like the sort of "improvement plan" that they use with troubled students at the local school district.

[Darth Wong]

The question of interest here is whether Ubiquitous is angry that a poor disabled woman just wasn't given enough chances, or whether he's bitter because UK law forces him to go through a much more involved runaround procedure that reads like the sort of "improvement plan" that they use with troubled students at the local school district.

Or he's just being a typical management tool who thinks way too highly of himself.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Has this been investigated? Has it been raised as an issue to her, in a formal manner, or is it just office heresay that the office junior just happened to overhear?

YES IT HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED.

So a Senior Manager delegates work to her underlings who suck and turn a two hour job into a ten hour one ... OH HEY, MAYBE WE SHOULD FIRE HER THEN!!!11

Yes, we should fire someone who assigned the same task to three different people.

a) So basically you are admitting that you know jack-shit about the process. Why the fuck are you wasting my time then rather than admit in my first response that you know jack shit and are just gossiping about the office rather than trying to defend your bosses actions, which you clearly know nothing about? I fucking hate wankers like you who come online and act like the big shot mocking someone who has lost their job. And as someone who has been sacked previously as you claim [geee, there's a surprise!] I thought you would have more class, but obviously you are a heartless prick.

I like her, she's a nice woman, but she deserved to be fired.

b) The fact she lives 200 miles away MEANS JACK SHIT. If a company wants to employ someone that far away, then they must treat them exactly the same as an employee on site. Would an employee on site be sacked over the phone, or called into the managers office? Obviously the latter. So she should too. Because she has not been treated in a fair and consistent manner she has GROUNDS FOR APPEAL. So shut the fuck up you worthless, knowledgeless cunt. Don't get involved in arguments on a subject you do not fucking understand the first things about.

Why is the fact that she wasn't met in person illegal? It isn't in her contract. I know, because I have the same contract. It says nothing about face-to-face redress.

NO THEY CANNOT. AGAIN, do these meetings occur over the phone in your office? NO. They happen in the managers office. So she has not been treated fair and equally. SO SHE HAS GROUNDS TO APPEAL. YOU FUCKING RETARD.

On what are you basing this assertion that she has to be met in person? Some twisted sense of justice?

Ah she's a manager, so the rules don't apply?! Actually, you will find that position, length of service and disability all combine to work in mitigation, particularly when there are instances of previous strong performance. She can argue this is a short term blip that she is working on. Generally, an employee who has been at a company for five years cannot be dismissed unless they have been performance managed for 18 months, and failed to improve to the agreed standards. But since your shitty backwater company doesn't even offer a personal meeting before dismissing anyone, and has no idea about how to deal with dismissals, I doubt they give a shit about these things ... well, until the court case rinses you dry.

Its not a short-term blip. She's been a problem for YEARS. She is NOT entitled to face-to-face meetings if she declines them (which she has, she shits a brick if someone offers to meet her face-to-face). And I really don't think you should call my company a 'shitty backwater' anything given we have 4800 employees in 20 states and nine countries.

I'm going to call bullshit on any of your personal testimonials since you are the fucking office junior and your colleagues obviously have personal problems with this lady.

If EVERYONE has problems with her, what other conclusion should you draw? That its all a conspiracy to get the evil disabled woman fired?

Well that was stupid of her ... let's fire her!

Its careless and recless of her and endemic of a larger problem.

Of course you don't you worthless grandstander, there is a whole process that has to be followed when dealing with disabled people who are being performance managed, which from the few things you have said on the subject seem like they don't exist in your amateur organisation. YOU said she was fired over an argument over a project, NOT about performance, you worthless backpeddling flip-flopper. Stop wasting my fucking time you prick.

I said the argument over the project was the last straw, which happened to play out directly in front of the regional VP. I also said she lied and was CONSISTENTLY late on projects. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Speechless. You obviously have no fucking clue just how well defended disabled people are in the workplace and just how complex the dismissal process is for performance issues like you have highlighed [even though you initially claimed it was a conduct matter that led to her dismissal]. But of course you don't, because you are a novice office junior who is trying to act all experienced with dismissal process, but in reality only has personal experience of dismissal being on the receiving end of losing a burger-flipping job.

Actually, I was fired from a job doing the exact same thing I'm doing now. Shithead. Three years ago. By a boss who didn't like me and set me up to fail.

I know that hearing that you are wrong and your company is an amateur organisation has hurt you, but really, you have no fucking clue what you are debating, do you?

Nope, you havn't established any credentials that you're an expert on american employment or contract law.

I am a senior manager you moron, not a lawyer. Labour laws are NOT my ally. They mean that I cannot get rid of people easily that I see non-performing/taking the piss. BUT, I do actually understand and respect the process because if I don't, not only will it be my arse in the tribunal stand, it is also my career and my company that will suffer if I fuck up.

And its inconceivable for you that all rules were followed, all tees were crossed and i's dotted, and the woman was still fired?

Yada yada yada ... office junior using second hand information as evidence he doesn't really know anything about ... stop wasting my time.

Since you're using my own second hand information to support your argument, what's the point of this statement?

When poor performance was recognised [probably after two red quarterly performance reviews] she should have been been performance managed. It should have been made exactly clear to her what was expected. She should have been given 18 months to improve, due to her length or service, previous good performance, and seniority. Due to her disability, she should have been offered even more time to improve [not because I agree with this, but because labour laws for disabled people are different to the rest of the workforce]. She would need monthly/periodic reviews throughout the whole process. Next steps would be agreed to see what problems she faced, and how she could go about solving them. Her manager should have been working to encourage her to improve by displaying his/her leadership skills to try and pull her along. If this 'pull' didn't work, then she would have to be 'pushed'. If these steps did not work, she should have a verbal warning for performance. If that didn't improve, then she would have a written warning. If that didn't improve, then she should be dismissed IF the correct paper-trail had been actioned, and all mitigating circumstances had been taken into account [and since she worked away from the office, this would be almost impossible to do as she is at a clear disadvantage due to the geographical location involved.]

A mandatory eighteen months of fucking up? Who runs a company like that? At any rate, she HAS been given a long time to improve, as I said she had delayed some projects almost TWO YEARS. I don't know at what point the process started, but I do know she has been 'on the outs' with many people in the company for a long time. Two other senior managers in my office refuse to speak/work with her, after she tried to take their projects away or treated them with disrespect.

Lets sum up your argument:

a. You think she was treated unfairly, based on my second-hand information.
b. I told you she was treated fairly, and through propper channels as I know them..
c. You say I can't defend myself using second-hand information.

Then we all decided you were a shithead who didn't know what you were talking about with regards to California labor law. You also made alot of unfounded assumptions about my current and previous emplyoment, and generally acted like a sanctimonious prick.

As far as I know, California does NOT have a mandatory eighteen month firing period, and employers are NOT required to do it in person, whether or not someone is disabled.
Did I miss anything?

[CaptainChewbacca]

To clarify, yes, we're all at-will employees. I noticed in Zod's bit that an employee can't be fired for disability. She's not being fired for being disabled (I'm not entirely sure what her disability is), she's being fired for failing to do her job and meet performance standards set by her supervisor.

[Rahvin]

Is a face-to-face firing legally mandated int eh UK? Becuase here, it is most definitely not. In fact, I've worked for employers whose preferred method of termination was via telephone - you'd head home after work, and get a phone call an hour later telling you not to come back, and this wasn't even necessarily for people who had done anything wrong.

There often isn't a lot of "proper procedure" here in teh US. In California, nearly every employee is considered "at will," meaning you can literally be fired or quit for any reason or no reason at all at any time.

The burden is not on the employer to prove that the employee deserved to be fired, but rather on the employee who believes they were fired wrongly. Note that "wrongly" doesn't have anything to do with training offered, or warnings before termination, or even job performance. You can sue based on discrimination or harassment, but you'd better have a good case, because you have to basically prove that the discrimination was the cause for (or at least significant contributing factor in) dismissal.

It sounds to me like Ubiquitous is trying to treat this as if it were covered under UK law, and it's simply not.

[Block]

Again, as was already covered in this thread, "At will" doesn't really mean no reason at all. You still have to follow company policy in getting rid of someone, and there has to be documentation that you've done so, or you're leaving yourself open to get sued.

Chewie the reason they could get in trouble for firing her over the phone is that most termination papers I've seen require a signature from the fired party, as do written warnings. Or a witness signing off on the employees refusal to sign. Reason being, an employer can easily forge documentation of misconduct and if the company policy says that warnings are required for termination, it's grounds for dispute.

[General Zod]

Again, as was already covered in this thread, "At will" doesn't really mean no reason at all. You still have to follow company policy in getting rid of someone, and there has to be documentation that you've done so, or you're leaving yourself open to get sued.

Wrong. At will means precisely that. The company can let you go for any reason that is not illegal. Documentation is not necessary.

Chewie the reason they could get in trouble for firing her over the phone is that most termination papers I've seen require a signature from the fired party, as do written warnings. Or a witness signing off on the employees refusal to sign. Reason being, an employer can easily forge documentation of misconduct and if the company policy says that warnings are required for termination, it's grounds for dispute.

According to what? I've been let go from jobs before and no such thing was required. The only reason I could see them requiring a signature is for severance packages.

[Block]

At will still means you have to follow Company Policy. Thus if your company policy says documentation is necessary, then legally you MUST provide it. And again, the signatures for termination is part of most large companies policies, it helps to protect them.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Again, as was already covered in this thread, "At will" doesn't really mean no reason at all. You still have to follow company policy in getting rid of someone, and there has to be documentation that you've done so, or you're leaving yourself open to get sued.

Chewie the reason they could get in trouble for firing her over the phone is that most termination papers I've seen require a signature from the fired party, as do written warnings. Or a witness signing off on the employees refusal to sign. Reason being, an employer can easily forge documentation of misconduct and if the company policy says that warnings are required for termination, it's grounds for dispute.

Well yeah, that's why she's also getting a registered letter sent to her with stuff to fill out. You sign to get severance and stuff like that.

[General Zod]

At will still means you have to follow Company Policy. Thus if your company policy says documentation is necessary, then legally you MUST provide it. And again, the signatures for termination is part of most large companies policies, it helps to protect them.

Except it's not state law for companies to require signatures for documentation, and left up to the individual company to decide. Otherwise they'd never be able to let go of, say, employees who just up and disappear or otherwise become incapable of signing.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Ubiquitous, actually, I have some legal questions for you. Why is it that people in the UK are prosecuted for owning handguns? THIS IS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES YOUR RIGHT TO ARMS. THOSE POLICEMEN AND ACTIVIST JUDGES WILL HAVE THEIR ASSES SUED INTO OBLIVION! Also, your president, Gordon Brown, was not born in the United States. Why has this miscarriage of justice continued for so long with no one crying out about the illegality?

Also, Chewie. Ubiquitous may actually have a point. If I were you, I'd contact your king to make sure he knows that you have washed your hands of this mess.

[Rahvin]

At will still means you have to follow Company Policy. Thus if your company policy says documentation is necessary, then legally you MUST provide it. And again, the signatures for termination is part of most large companies policies, it helps to protect them.

Not directly. it means you need to treat everyone the same way, which in most cases amounts to the same thing.

At Will

In California, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it's not illegal. Generally, employees that work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In California, the at-will presumption can be overcome by evidence that despite the absence of a specified term of employment, the parties agreed who the employer's power to terminate would be limited in some way.

Employee Handbooks

While an employer is not required by law to have an employee handbook, in most cases, it is recommended. An employee handbook provides a centralized, complete and certain record of the employer's policies and procedures.An employee handbook also provides more convenient access by employees and managers.

At a minimum, an employee handbook should include:

* A statement regarding the at-will employment relationship
* An equal employment opportunity statement
* A policy regarding sexual and other types of harassment in the workplace
* Internet access, e-mail, and voice mail policies
* The Family Medical Leave Act

The laws regarding an employer's duties and responsibilities arising under an employee handbook are complex, and a licensed attorney should be contacted to review individual circumstances.

From here.

It's not required to even have a company policy, and you aren't required to have a "reason" or even a procedure for terminating employees. you can literally walk up to an employee, say "you're fired," and that's it. Unless the employee can prove that he was being discriminated against with regards to a protected status, the termination is completely legal.

If there is a company policy, the company needs to follow it only so far as to ensure that all employees are treated equally without regard for race, gender, etc. They can still simply say "go home, you're fired," without disciplinary proceedings or investigations or anything else so long as it cannot be shown that the termination was the result of illegal discrimination.

[CmdrWilkens]

At will still means you have to follow Company Policy. Thus if your company policy says documentation is necessary, then legally you MUST provide it. And again, the signatures for termination is part of most large companies policies, it helps to protect them.

Within most requirements for signature there is usually (not always because I can't say that for certain) the understanding that an employee might refuse to sign disciplinary or termination paperwork. In paticular employees who fail to present themselves from work (no-call no-show employees) usually require just a certified letter since they obviously have not come in to work so its unreasonable for the company to hold their position until they do so just to get fired. In the alternate cases where a person refuses to sign it is often, but again not always, procedure to have a second management representative note on the disciplinary/termination paperwork that notice was given and the employee refused to sign.

Now, again, this can vary from company to company but the signature requirement is solely a matter of internal policy (and also a matter of proper record keeping) which does tend to have caveats.

[CmdrWilkens]

At will still means you have to follow Company Policy. Thus if your company policy says documentation is necessary, then legally you MUST provide it. And again, the signatures for termination is part of most large companies policies, it helps to protect them.

Not directly. it means you need to treat everyone the same way, which in most cases amounts to the same thing.

Well if the employment policy states that certain documentation proedures will be followed then failure to adhere to such standards could be uesd as grounds for wrongful termination. So while you don't have to have an employee handbook once you put something in writing for employee's to reference it creates a de facto work contract. In turn handbooks/policies will often remind folks that their employment is at-will (I know both of my last two companis did so) but they will also layout the grounds under which discipline will be enforced and failing to adhere to those standards opens the company up.

[Block]

At will still means you have to follow Company Policy. Thus if your company policy says documentation is necessary, then legally you MUST provide it. And again, the signatures for termination is part of most large companies policies, it helps to protect them.

Within most requirements for signature there is usually (not always because I can't say that for certain) the understanding that an employee might refuse to sign disciplinary or termination paperwork. In paticular employees who fail to present themselves from work (no-call no-show employees) usually require just a certified letter since they obviously have not come in to work so its unreasonable for the company to hold their position until they do so just to get fired. In the alternate cases where a person refuses to sign it is often, but again not always, procedure to have a second management representative note on the disciplinary/termination paperwork that notice was given and the employee refused to sign.

Now, again, this can vary from company to company but the signature requirement is solely a matter of internal policy (and also a matter of proper record keeping) which does tend to have caveats.

Yar I posted that already

Chewie the reason they could get in trouble for firing her over the phone is that most termination papers I've seen require a signature from the fired party, as do written warnings. Or a witness signing off on the employees refusal to sign.

[General Zod]

Yar I posted that already

Chewie the reason they could get in trouble for firing her over the phone is that most termination papers I've seen require a signature from the fired party, as do written warnings. Or a witness signing off on the employees refusal to sign.

You're not paying attention. Nobody's talking about company policy; that changes from company to company. It's not LEGALLY required for them to gather a signature, that's the thing you seem to keep glossing over, and the only thing that's being discussed is the legal ramification. Since we have no way of knowing what's in the company handbook and/or policy of the place Chewie works, your speculation is baseless. But from the sounds of things they do not require a signature to have someone fired, it's just a courtesy for companies that offer things like severance packages. (Hint: When you're fired, as opposed to laid off, you are generally not given a severance package).

[SirNitram]

Ubiq seems to be operating under the strange assumption that the Americans With Disabilities Act has not been repeatedly gutted.

All the woman had a right to was 'Reasonable accomodation', and that if she met legitimate requirements for remaining employed, she couldn't be fired. Being obstructionist violates any legitimacy to the ADA for firing, and I'd actually say her accomodations were well beyond the normal levels, unless her only essential job duty was to be in contact with her underlings.