StarDestroyer.Net BBS

No, YOU'RE not paying attention. The LAW states you must follow your written company policy. No one is talking about severance packages. In fact Chewie said she was being sent written notification, so obviously it's in the policy.

Block wrote:No, YOU'RE not paying attention. The LAW states you must follow your written company policy. No one is talking about severance packages. In fact Chewie said she was being sent written notification, so obviously it's in the policy.

You should work on your own reading comprehension skills, you retarded assclown.

Chewie wrote: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.

Unless something like severance packages or other niceties are in a person's contract, there's no reason they have to sign anything to be dismissed. The company is NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED to include this in their policy. Yes, they are required to follow policy. No, they do not have to include things like signing documentation in the policy. Is this simple enough or do I need to write this out in crayon for you to comprehend?

Block wrote:No, YOU'RE not paying attention. The LAW states you must follow your written company policy. No one is talking about severance packages. In fact Chewie said she was being sent written notification, so obviously it's in the policy.

Oh for fucks sake!

The law does not require that you HAVE any company policy regarding terminations, nor that any such policy contain any requirement for signatures or any particular procedure!

The law only even requires adherence to company policy in a roundabout way, in that deviation from a stated policy if one exists can be used as evidence of discrimination.

But the law does not require much of anything at all for at-will employees. Quite literally, "I don't like you" is good enough as far as the [law is concerned.

We have no information from Chewie regarding what their company policy is, if there is one. They can send a certified letter even if they have no company policy regarding terminations. The fact that a letter was sent does not necessarily mean that any signature or written notice is required for termination, either legally or even under Chewie's company policy.

In fact, the fact that the terminated woman lives so far away and will not come into the office is a perectly good justification for not needing to follow any sort of "in person" company policy, should one even exist. As Nitram said, they must only make a reasonable allowance for her disability, which means that sending a letter rather than driving 200 miles is perfectly acceptable even if that's not their usual policy. In fact, it could be considered adherence to the law by not requiring her to come in to the office to meet with the manager in person to be terminated!

The simple fact is, they cannot get in trouble for simply terminating someone over the phone. Not in an at-will state like California. The only way they can get in trouble is if she can prove that she was terminated specifically for a protected reason, ie gender, disability, or racial discrimination. Nothing in Chewie's story even hints that such discrimination has taken place, or provides evidence that would pass the "reasonable person" test in court.

Block wrote:No, YOU'RE not paying attention. The LAW states you must follow your written company policy. No one is talking about severance packages. In fact Chewie said she was being sent written notification, so obviously it's in the policy.

Let me give you an example of how this works:

If Company A's (in California) policy says that in order for someone to be terminated, their manager must document their poor performance for a minimum of three months, set them up on a performance improvement plan, and meet with them on a weekly basis to discuss how they're performance is improving (or where it's failing to). Now, if Manager Smith fires Employee Jones when he walks in the door one morning with no warning, no documentation, no performance improvement plan, no meetings, Company A might be in trouble, if Employee Jones care to bring a lawsuit and show how the company violated the law, but probably not, because State (or Federal) law supersedes company policies.

On the flip side, if company policy says employees can be fired at will, but it's not an at will employment state, the company who fires someone without following state law is in big, big trouble.

Like I said, we're at-will employees, but generally in a company as big as mine they make sure to doccument bad performance for a while before they fire you.

Interesting to note, I got severance when I was laid off AND when I was fired. Not much, just a couple weeks, but I got it both times.

SancheztheWhaler wrote:

Block wrote:No, YOU'RE not paying attention. The LAW states you must follow your written company policy. No one is talking about severance packages. In fact Chewie said she was being sent written notification, so obviously it's in the policy.

Let me give you an example of how this works:

If Company A's (in California) policy says that in order for someone to be terminated, their manager must document their poor performance for a minimum of three months, set them up on a performance improvement plan, and meet with them on a weekly basis to discuss how they're performance is improving (or where it's failing to). Now, if Manager Smith fires Employee Jones when he walks in the door one morning with no warning, no documentation, no performance improvement plan, no meetings, Company A might be in trouble, if Employee Jones care to bring a lawsuit and show how the company violated the law, but probably not, because State (or Federal) law supersedes company policies.

On the flip side, if company policy says employees can be fired at will, but it's not an at will employment state, the company who fires someone without following state law is in big, big trouble.

Not quite, though. It's even easier on the company - the failure to adhere to company policy itself is not what's illegal. The employee would still need to show that he was discriminated against under a protected status - in other words, if he can't show that the breach of procedure was due to racial, gender, disability, or other illegal discrimination, then the termination was still legal.

Rahvin wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote:

Block wrote:No, YOU'RE not paying attention. The LAW states you must follow your written company policy. No one is talking about severance packages. In fact Chewie said she was being sent written notification, so obviously it's in the policy.

Let me give you an example of how this works:

If Company A's (in California) policy says that in order for someone to be terminated, their manager must document their poor performance for a minimum of three months, set them up on a performance improvement plan, and meet with them on a weekly basis to discuss how they're performance is improving (or where it's failing to). Now, if Manager Smith fires Employee Jones when he walks in the door one morning with no warning, no documentation, no performance improvement plan, no meetings, Company A might be in trouble, if Employee Jones care to bring a lawsuit and show how the company violated the law, but probably not, because State (or Federal) law supersedes company policies.

On the flip side, if company policy says employees can be fired at will, but it's not an at will employment state, the company who fires someone without following state law is in big, big trouble.

Not quite, though. It's even easier on the company - the failure to adhere to company policy itself is not what's illegal. The employee would still need to show that he was discriminated against under a protected status - in other words, if he can't show that the breach of procedure was due to racial, gender, disability, or other illegal discrimination, then the termination was still legal.

I'm pretty sure that's what I said

We'll see what you people have to say about 'Corporate policy' once I inform the Politburo of this! They'll be on your asses like a purge on the officer corps!