Filing for Unemployment with Company that serially fires employees

Submitted by marqui4me t3_ygzq9h in personalfinance

My wife went to work with a company with a very high turnover rate, and was shown the door right before her benefits were set to kick in (along with the other new hires).

They specifically put in her termination letter that she "violated company policies." (It's neither here nor there, but I believe the company has a habit of getting these short term hires, dangling benefits, and firing them before they kick in).

Should she file for unemployment anyways? They obviously put this in the letter so that they don't have to pay unemployment as well.

edit: just to add a little more detail, she was given positive 30/60/90 day reviews by her superior. they locked her out of her computer before she was able to document and save all the positive feedback she received. the violations were being late to her desk (not to work), messaging the wrong person(s) about processes.

edit2: thank you for all the advice. she applied and I looked over everything... so we'll see what happens. to add one more piece of info, this company usually hires a lot of green employees so I don't think they're filing for unemployment. she was talking to a fellow terminated team member who didn't even think to file until my wife mentioned it.

425

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

KaiserSozes-brother t1_iubay58 wrote

I would file and argue for benefits if denied. It will cost you nothing.

638

DD_equals_doodoo t1_iucxkkh wrote

If she was fired without cause and the employer lied, sure file for unemployment. If she was fired for smoking crack and lighting the building on fire, don't file - it's a waste of everyone's time and state resources.

125

marqui4me OP t1_iudbmt8 wrote

To ease your anxieties, I can assure you my wife was not smoking crack nor was she committing arson.

219

RagingOrgyNuns t1_iudhk50 wrote

Why not?

64

marqui4me OP t1_iuejw9k wrote

Probably afraid of realizing her full potential I imagine.

98

RazedByTV t1_iuesv9l wrote

Eagles may fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

19

marqui4me OP t1_iug7obh wrote

I don't know why, but this makes me think of a sign I bought in Colorado when I was twelve that read "The more you run over a possum, the flatter it gets."

3

Oldmanontheinternets t1_iuedmha wrote

File anyway. If you are fired, reason or not, file. At some point, someone at the state may notice a pattern and start taking action on it.

10

DD_equals_doodoo t1_iuehsvz wrote

  1. It doesn't work like that.
  2. It's unethical. If you know you won't receive unemployment (e.g., intentionally lighting the building on fire) and you apply anyway, you are doing something you know is wrong.
  3. It's a complete waste of peoples' time - have some respect for people who are there to do their job.
−17

BlitzGash t1_iueowvu wrote

That doesn't apply here. The company clearly put something false in her letter.

4

Shoesietart t1_iubd36m wrote

The unemployment office determines whether someone receives unemployment. The company may argue that "they" think you're not eligible, but the unemployment office decides.

Always apply and fight any denial. It's pretty easy to win unless you really fucked up. Point out their history of firing people before benefits kick in. Also, post their behavior everywhere.

343

MizchiefKilz t1_iucefrd wrote

Did they even give a specific policy that was violated? do they have proof of what she did and proof that she was trained not to do that? Any documented warnings?

68

Shoesietart t1_iucod7r wrote

Exactly. That's why the employer may not win.

What is the documented policy; when and how was it shared; did employee receive relevant notification and training re policy; Is policy legal; In what way did employee violate policy; were they warned, when and how, etc., what is history of firings?

63

DD_equals_doodoo t1_iudrg10 wrote

It depends. Some things are pretty obvious. For example, if you no call, no show, the unemployment office is unlikely to rule in your favor. I forget the language they use, but if you show no regard or care to protect your unemployment, they will not rule in your favor. You don't have to a have a policy for everything as an employer.

5

PassionFruit_1 t1_iueqx57 wrote

I was GM at a restaurant a while back. Guy stops showing up for work, I document it, after a week of not responding I terminated him in the system. He shows up a month later, and I tell him I had to hire a replacement because he stopped showing up and responding.

Dude filed for unemployment and received it. I was confused to say the least but it was not my job or responsibility anymore to worry about that.

7

SafetyMan35 t1_iudaehq wrote

We had to terminate employment for an employee and we documented it in a memo to the employee outlining where he was falling short and where he needed to improve. He signed the letter acknowledging he received it. We worked with him, but his attitude became worse and we ultimately terminated employment, but we documented why he was terminated.

The employee never filed for unemployment, so I’m not sure if it would have caused a denial, but the reasons were clearly documented

10

RightofUp t1_iudmgms wrote

Depends entirely on the unemployment judge.

If the "cause" was performance based, I usually watched my company lose its appeal to unemployment for a variety of factors.

If the "cause" was behavioral and opened the company to possible litigation (such as harassment), then unemployment was always denied.

In these situations in my state, the judge is the deciding factor, not the company or applicant.

13

Jimshorties t1_iucz1xx wrote

Mention the others who were likewise terminated

18

CmdrShepard831 t1_iucgfau wrote

Fraud aside, it seems like all these things could be easily faked by an employer considering hearings consist of a phone call and then ruled on.

7

oedipism_for_one t1_iucu5dn wrote

While possible and definitely has happened you don’t want to get caught doing this. That’s why the more people who file the more attention gets drawn to a company. As others have stated it costs you nothing to try.

23

defcon212 t1_iud89k9 wrote

The employee tends to get unemployment unless the employer can prove cause, it's one area where employees do alright in the US system.

9

OathOfFeanor t1_iudlxjk wrote

Eh, it's just as flawed as other bureaucratic systems.

My legitimate claim was denied and it was impossible to speak to anyone on the phone or get a response to any letter I sent.

OP's wife should be prepared for a little bit of a fight IMO

4

Fox2quick t1_iud8i9v wrote

I once switched jobs because my old job was stringing me along for a raise I knew they wouldn’t give. Found a new job that happened to be seasonal (but started at the beginning of the season). Worked throughout the whole season and then filed for temporary unemployment through the off season.

Due to some clerical error, my unemployment was being paid by my old job, not my new one, despite having been at the new job long enough for them to be the ones paying.

My old job (rightfully) disputed it and myself and my old boss had to go to the local unemployment office for a hearing.

Very little of the process was handled over the phone. All communications were via mail.

The hearing wasn’t a bad experience at all. Me and my old boss sat opposite at a table in the clerk’s office. She heard both our sides, asked a few questions, and then filed whatever she needed to for my new company to be the ones paying.

9

Metradime t1_iudmpja wrote

If the previous employer doesn't have any sway, why are they party to this at all??

As in, at that point, isn't the employer just telling the unemployment office whether or not they like you personally?

1

Shoesietart t1_iue31e5 wrote

Employers have the right to fire shitty employees and they can contest your benefits since unemployment is funded by employers. Lots of claims may increase the unemployment tax rate they're required to pay. They don't want to pay benefits to a poorly performing former employee - always late, took long lunches, didn't show up, etc. If they can demonstrate someone was unreliable or difficult, the state may agree and not pay unemployment benefits.

0

sugabeetus t1_iubltv0 wrote

I got fired once because I told a supervisor she wasn't allowed to deny me my legal break (it started as a misunderstanding; I thought I was closing and had to work for a few more hours, I had been working at least 6 hours and finally had a chance to grab a bite to eat, but it turned out I wasn't closing and only had about 10 minutes more of work after that, but by the time she told me I'd been on break for 5 minutes and was halfway through my food, so I said I'd just finish up my 10, do my end of shift stuff and go, she insisted I get up immediately and I said that's illegal). Unknown to me, she called one of the managers that night to complain about me. I showed up for my next shift and the manager pulled me into the tiny office, stood over me yelling and swearing (about the weirdest unrelated stuff, too, like he heard I had said I didn't like his cousin that he'd hired??) because he'd been bothered at home on his night off about it. Like I was the one who called him. After a few minutes I calmly said, "I am not going to be yelled at," and left the office. He fired me on the spot. I went home and the first thing I did was type up the entire situation, I didn't even know why. Just to get it out. That was lucky because when I filed for UI, he lied to them and said I was fired for "insubordination" so I printed out my statement and sent it in. I also sent it to the state labor board, in case they wanted to look into the break policy there. I never heard about that but I did get my unemployment. The letter actually said something like, "we have determined that the employer's claim was false." I don't know if they were trying to make a point or if that was just the usual language.

124

vatizdisiz t1_iuda7gr wrote

This is why difficult situations should always by followed by journaling, first reason is to help you process the emotions. 2nd reason is this!

19

marqui4me OP t1_iudcfyg wrote

This is what I told my wife. I've been thrown under the bus plenty of times, so I go ahead and document things I feel uneasy about or that may come back to bite me in the ass.

11

Tacos_truck t1_iudmbye wrote

What did she do originally that was illegal?

2

PossibleHipster t1_iuduos3 wrote

It's in the 1st sentence?

5

Tacos_truck t1_iuduxac wrote

That OP took a break they weren’t legally required to get because they were working a short shift?

2

PossibleHipster t1_iudv368 wrote

Like they said, they thought they were closing. They didn't know they were on a short shift...

Also depending on the state they could still have a legally required break for the number of hours they worked.

2

Tacos_truck t1_iudvfwz wrote

So OP goofed and rather than just accept it and wrap half their sandwich back up, jumped immediately to telling their supervisor they were breaking the law

1

PossibleHipster t1_iudvryu wrote

Depending on what state they are in they can still have a legally required break that they were denied. E.g. California.

But like, maybe you should go read their post again because it sounds like you clearly didn't understand parts of it.

3

Tacos_truck t1_iudwbio wrote

I understand it, it’s just more of the same “management always bad, workers never wrong” on Reddit. Taking even some accountability goes a long way

1

PossibleHipster t1_iudxkvs wrote

I'm not sure why you are hellbent on assuming they were not legally required to get a break. There are a ton of state laws that require breaks.

3

sugabeetus t1_iuemwtw wrote

It's not. She was wrong. He was wrong. I was right.

2

sugabeetus t1_iuemn9v wrote

I didn't goof, she was wrong, and I only pointed out the law after a few minutes of polite (on my side at least) talking.

2

sugabeetus t1_iuemf85 wrote

I had already worked the 6 hours minimum to require me to take a 10. I was very aware of the law because the upper management had been getting very strict about making sure employees were taking their state-mandated breaks. I was actually trying to help her not get in trouble at first.

2

93195 t1_iubd3d1 wrote

Of course she should file. Worse that happens is denial. In other words, same thing that happens if she doesn’t file.

78

1imeanwhatisay1 t1_iubjmn7 wrote

I don't know if everywhere is the same, but here the unemployment office keeps a record of businesses that fire a lot of people. It definitely weighs in when applying. If they see a company with a long string of people applying they're a lot more likely to approve them.

edit: I believe they refer to them as hostile employers.

76

flmhdpsycho t1_iubzfjx wrote

I think they also generally pay higher unemployment premiums if there are a lot of people filing from that company

24

marqui4me OP t1_iudbvj6 wrote

She was warned by someone else of the high turnover rate, but proceeded ahead with the job because she thought "oh maybe they're just whining, etc etc".

8

1imeanwhatisay1 t1_iue78m7 wrote

That's fine as long as you have a plan for when you do get fired. Sometimes it's handy to learn new skills that can be used somewhere else for a better job. Secretly document your treatment, wait to get fired, claim unemployment with the documentation, then find a better job with those skills.

7

visitor987 t1_iubq7bz wrote

Yes file for unemployment. Don't sign any statement that is not true or that you do not understand which may be used to try to deny you unemployment.

If your past employer does try to deny you unemployment you will be denied UNLESS YOU APPEAL. Just GO TO any unemployment office, you can email (a few states are totally on-line now), but it’s better to talk in person/via phone, in the same state that you applied for the insurance online, and FILE AN APPEAL its FREE to appeal. There is a very short list of valid just cause reasons to deny unemployment. They vary by state and have to be proved by your employer if you appeal.

The farther the unemployment office is from your past employer’s location the more it will cost your past employer to fight your appeal so they may just give up rather than get all the notarized paper work in by the deadline. I suspect your past employer will just verify your dates of employment if a new employer calls for a reference give HR’s number if asked, otherwise you could sue them if they give you a bad reference.

Here is how unemployment works in USA. You are employed at will in all states except MT, so can be fired for any reason or no reason, except an illegal one, unless you are in a union. You can only be denied unemployment if the firing is on the list of approved reasons for your state and the employer can prove the reason is true.

Step 1 ex-employee applies for unemployment. If past employer says approve ex-employee is approved. If past employer says deny ex-employee giving a reason on the state list before deadline; ex-employee is denied unless ex-employee appeals(a few clerks just deny unless you appeal then they check the list); if employer gives a reason not on the list of approved reasons, to deny unemployment, ex-employee is approved anyway(this only happens if the employer does not bother to read the list or won’t lie under oath).

Step 2 Appeal: Most ex-employees do NOT know they can appeal so few denials are appealed. Notarized statements must be filed by the deadline by employer to prove the reason. The ex-employee notarized statement is included in the appeal. A hearing clerk reads the statements and decides who to believe. Then either grants or denies unemployment. No cost to ex-employee

Step 3 If the ex-employee loses and appeals again for a formal hearing before an admin hearing officer. No cost to ex-employee unless he/she hires a lawyer. Everyone must testify in person under oath to reason the employee was fired. Then the hearing officer either grants retroactive unemployment since this is usually six months to a year later for hearing to be held or denies unemployment. Often the witnesses have moved on to other jobs and won’t appear or the employer or ex-employee do not show up. If ex-employee shows up and no else does the ex-employee usually wins. The employer can also appeal for hearing but that almost never happens.

Step 4 either side appeals to the regular courts almost never happens because both sides have to pay legal costs.

25

TheLoofster t1_iuc6hic wrote

>If your past employer does try to deny you unemployment you will be denied UNLESS YOU APPEAL.

This is not always true. I had an old employer fight my claim. I wasn't denied, and did not have to appeal. The unemployment agency looked at the "proof" submitted, and rightfully realized that a word document with a statement that company policy was violated wasn't proof of anything.

3

sfdragonboy t1_iubbphc wrote

She should try. Why not?

24

TheLoofster t1_iuc67zv wrote

She should file for unemployment. The employer needs to be able to prove company policy was violated. I had a similar situation happen to me, and when it was time for that employer to prove it, all they did was essentially send a word document saying I had violated company policy. There was no proof, as I hadn't violated company policy.

Thankfully the burden is on the employer, not the employee.

10

AdderallBuyersClub t1_iuc7r0e wrote

Do it. Always file. Not only does it help your fellow terminated employees, but it helps flag the company in the EDD database.

10

dasquared t1_iubpioq wrote

Another point-since they stated a reason, you could choose to try to file for wrongful termination. They would have to disclose what policies were violated and be able to substantiate it or owe her...nice thing is it's the type of case employment lawyers may take on contingency, especially if there are numbers of people all fired "for cause" that could not be substantiated...

7

TacoNomad t1_iubzmk8 wrote

Well, it's says right here in the policy, you must quit 3 days before benefits eligibility. Failure to comply results in immediate termination.

8

trevor32192 t1_iuctje1 wrote

This is exactly why I think that rule or law is backwards. Companies should have to show clear evidence of problems, loss of sales, any burden of proof to fire someone.

4

DD_equals_doodoo t1_iucy3b7 wrote

It's not that easy. It is sometimes difficult to prove an employee did something unless you walk around 100% of the time with a camera recording.

2

Melvolicious t1_iud9qvc wrote

Absolutely file. I saw someone get unemployment after they were fired for only showing up to work 1 or 2 days a week after the company gave him multiple chances, documented everything, the whole shebang. I'm sure the unemployment office sees businesses trying to pull stunts like your wife's did and will probably see right through their game.

7

HolyGig t1_iuc27k3 wrote

You should file even more so because its a company like that. The unemployment office will know them well

5

Creepy-Ad-4320 t1_iucmk6o wrote

Surprised no one has mentioned calling a lawyer. Did you and the others actually do something to warrant termination? If they’re habitually firing people without cause so as to avoid giving benefits this is not only unethical and disgusting but it’s illegal. With yours and your fellow ex coworkers I say you guys got a really good chance of your employers settling out of court. It will cost them more in lawyers fees to fight a battle they know they will lose. Maybe they’ll think twice of treating future employees this way. It’s costs nothing to pick up the phone and call an employment attorney. Good luck!

5

gritherness t1_iud0yxg wrote

> If they’re habitually firing people without cause so as to avoid giving benefits this is not only unethical and disgusting but it’s illegal.

...it is? Where, and on what grounds?

2

vakr001 t1_iud8v9y wrote

Most employers consider employees as “At Will” employees and that they can be terminated at any time.

This is just poor management. It costs more money to train new people than benefits.

1

Creepy-Ad-4320 t1_iuda90x wrote

Yep I guess you guys are right. Just seems super shitty to offer benefits then consistently fire people right before they kick in. I guess there are wrongful termination cases but you’d have to prove due to race gender etc. At minimum they should get unemployment

1

marqui4me OP t1_iudctru wrote

when she was hired (for her experience in management & project processes), they told her they had a problem with high turnover and were trying to fix it.

so while doing her work and learning, she was documenting how to improve work-flow at the company. ceo did not like that...even though that's why they brought her on.

1

Discally t1_iublr5x wrote

I would file anyway.

Nothing to lose, especially if the unemployment office (and maybe the Dept of Labor) are aware that the place appears to churn high with regards to turnover.

Sure, they might fight it simply out of spite. But they might still lose, too.

4

kikivee612 t1_iubv0hi wrote

She should file. It may be a fight if they say she violated policy, but they will send her a form to fill out and she needs to document that the company has a high turnover rate and that she was never disciplined for anything, if that’s the case.

I worked for a company like that and to this day, I regret not following up with filing. I knew I had another job lined up and just didn’t think it was worth it.

4

CHiggins1235 t1_iud0qv6 wrote

File for unemployment. It’s paid by the state which in turn charges the company. I can’t imagine she violated some obscure company policy. She wasn’t snorting cocaine in the break room or something crazy? If not than I can’t imagine she did something that would warrant termination. Tell her to file just so she can see if the company objects and is forced to produce the policy she “violated”. I don’t think they will say anything because they terminated her to avoid giving her benefits like 401k and health insurance.

3

DFWdawg t1_iuch5xx wrote

I used to sit in on three way calls with the unemployment office as a union officer representing members…just keep appealing it and don’t sign anything…members terminated for drugs and or theft were eventually given the benefit 100% of the time…the company you work for wants you to give up because they have to pay a portion of it…

2

readsomething1968 t1_iuehbqr wrote

This. Exactly this. My husband took a buyout with 10 other employees at his company and was told that he’d be eligible for unemployment once his severance period ended. He applied, he got the payments. Then the company gave some bullshit reason why he wasn’t eligible, and his claim was ended — he stopped getting the payments with no notice whatsoever. We appealed, the hearing officer sided with the company, so we appealed again. In the meantime, I started researching our state’s employment law and found a precedent for our argument. At the final appeal (a phone call with an administrative law judge), my husband had the talking points organized and mentioned that case. We won. If we had lost the case, we would have been required to pay back the payments we had already received.

The interesting thing is that the other people who took the buyout at the same time as my husband got unemployment with no problem.

The lesson here is: Learn about cases involving employers who do similar things, and fight, fight, fight. These shitty companies are getting away this kind of thing. They should not.

1

kingfarvito t1_iud2g1y wrote

Always apply. A big part of unemployment is that it's a financial deterrent to employers doing exactly this. It's entirely possible that your wife did indeed violate company policy. Shady employers often require violating company policy in order to do the job specifically so they can fire you at any time while having a reason to do so. That doesn't make her intelligible for unemployment.

2

OJimmy t1_iud5iff wrote

File if in CA. A CA employer has the burden to prove willful misconduct to dispute benefits. It's not enough to be bad at the work - they have to show some state of mind of the employee that meets that element.
If the employer can't give proof, then the employee gets the benefits. It's uncommon that an employer has objective evidence of a typical fired employee (way less likely if the company fires lots of people).

2

simonf75 t1_iud8sua wrote

You should always file for unemployment if you get fired. You pay into it, get your $$.

2

jr01245 t1_iud937u wrote

Hr here. Have her file for unemployment and answer the questions truthfully. Unemployment varies wildly by state but generally when you file they will ask for a reason, and they will then reach out to your previous employer and ask them why. If the reasons match and it is something qualifying like a layoff, you are approved and move on.

If the reasons don't match, you say layoff, they say policy violations, they will reach out to both usually with more questions. To you, they will typically say something like "employer says fired. For policy violation and has proven you knew about the policy (usually signed handbook page will prove this if policy is in handbook) and disregarded it.

They may make a determination with just the initial questions or they may make it here.

If they decide you are ineligible you can appeal and I urge you to do this if any of the information is incorrect. If the handbook you got doesn't have that policy, you didn't violate it, whatever.

Respond with the information they asked for and any documentation you have to back that up.

The company will also be given a chance to appeal if the determination goes in your favor. If they come back with more documentation that she was performing at 42 whatever per whatever and then she was disciplined and production went to 12 whatever per week that would be fairly easy to prove and the determination would be reversed and she'd be ineligible. Each communication from them should say exactly what your options are but, again, varies wildly by state

2

lancea_longini t1_iudd0f6 wrote

Here is the greater truth about filing for unemployment (or about anything). I know you want to know what the likelihood is. That’s a fair question. Always file. Let someone tell you no. But always put in the ask.

2

bdar30 t1_iuddhso wrote

Just because you was let go doesn't mean you won't get unemployment

2

CommonConfusables t1_iudsr6l wrote

Yes apply.

Your wife needs to write down the facts in order, including the positive reviews. She will use this if the company argues against her application.

I have learned that companies like this either don’t answer the paperwork from unemployment so they don’t lie to the government, or they try and claim bullshit that she can refute.

The person asking her questions is usually pretty kind and has no determination on the situation, but their wording can, so make sure she just states facts, not feelings. (A fact is that she had positive reviews, a fact is that no one brought up anything negative about her performance prior to firing her, a feeling is being sad about what happened or angry at them for how they sucked).

File for unemployment. Help establish a pattern so that labor and industry can help.

2

Tandybaum t1_iuey29l wrote

“I always received positive reviews and I did the job to the best of my ability”

These are the magic words

2

Brew_Wallace t1_iuf98i9 wrote

Yes, and I would expect the company to reject the claim. Start documenting her work history, mainly including any write-ups or performance improvement plans, reviews, work environment and work load.
I had a similar company file me and reject the unemployment claim. They said I was on a performance improvement plan and fired for not meeting those expectations. They lost after I agreed that I had been but it was over a year prior and then provided documents showing I had received exemplary reviews since then and stated that the plan had not been referenced or discussed with me in many months.

2

gpister t1_iuernm8 wrote

As long as their is no logical reason she was terminated I would still apply. My understanding when you work for a company 90 days you are entitled for unemployment (unless their is some type of specification). I would go with the flow worse comes to worse you don't get it.

1

Impressive_Tone_1911 t1_iuf75dn wrote

Now wondering if I can file- I have not be terminated, suspended or put on any notice- I’m still an employee but my hours have been cut to zero. I’m prn but contract states 20 hrs biweekly. Anyway, boss made false claims against me, I filed complaint with HR to cover myself, boss pulls me off schedule. HR has been dragging with the investigation, but has stated that there’s nothing negative in my file. They are now giving me the silent treatment, waiting for me to quit I’m sure. Was getting close to 40 hours/ week before this.

1

pilgrim202 t1_iufmxcs wrote

I read recently that employment attorneys typically work on contingency. Consultation certainly will be free at least. Good luck to you friend.

1

JWCRaigs t1_iue11jc wrote

You both should start voting for someone that does not let corporations do this. especially since most business's that survived covid, used money from the government. The same tax money they took out of both your checks.

−2

Belgy23 t1_iuc1krh wrote

This is awesome!

How much payback did they have to do?

Say in the 10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 or what I would expect 500,000 ish.

−3