In September of 2003, I was released from a company I had worked for for a little over 4 years. When I was let go, I was told that I was being let go because the company didn't want to train me so they were letting me go so they could hire already trained personnel. I received compensation and drew unemployment compensation. In Idaho, you are able to draw unemployment insurance only if you are laid-off or also know as "reduction of force." I have been unable to gain very many interviews let alone employment since this happened. I had an interview recently with a company and one of the interviewees was a friend that I went to High School with. He informed me that when they contacted my former supervisor, he told them that the company had never had a "reduction of force." I know that this has probably kept me from getting several interviews because when I would fill out an application, I would write "reduction of force" for the reason leaving. The perspective employer then assumes that I am lying on my application. I have no idea as to what I can do about this so that my former supervisor quits lying and I can possibly work again.
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Former supervisor lying
- Thread Starter wdcollins
- Start date
- Status
cbg
Super Moderator
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see where your former supervisor is lying. Letting you go because they don't want to train you and would prefer to hire trained personnel is not a reduction in force. An RIF is when there is a mass layoff and many people are let go all at once (also known as a downsizing).
A layoff and a reduction in force are not necessarily the same thing. They can be, but the term "layoff" as used colloquially (though slightly incorrectly) means any time you are let go through no fault of your own. Pretty much any time you are involuntary terminated for any reason except misconduct or, in some instances, poor performance, and it doesn't matter whether it was just you or dozens.
A reduction in force, however, ONLY means a mass layoff.
This is not a case of your supervisor lying. This is a case of you misunderstanding the terms, using the wrong one, and accidently slitting your own throat. The company is correct - there was no reduction in force.
Start putting "laid off due to training restrictions" on your applications instead of "reduction in force" and the problem will cease.
A layoff and a reduction in force are not necessarily the same thing. They can be, but the term "layoff" as used colloquially (though slightly incorrectly) means any time you are let go through no fault of your own. Pretty much any time you are involuntary terminated for any reason except misconduct or, in some instances, poor performance, and it doesn't matter whether it was just you or dozens.
A reduction in force, however, ONLY means a mass layoff.
This is not a case of your supervisor lying. This is a case of you misunderstanding the terms, using the wrong one, and accidently slitting your own throat. The company is correct - there was no reduction in force.
Start putting "laid off due to training restrictions" on your applications instead of "reduction in force" and the problem will cease.
I don't know where you are getting your information about a reduction in force is a mass layoff. This is the fourth time I have been laid off and the previous three were formally stated as Reduction in Force. The first and second times I was the only one let go, the third time i was one of 4 that were let go the same day. Idaho law states that you can only draw unemployment for a reduction of force, I have talked to an attorney about this in the past. The State of Idaho, Department of Labor, also informed me that it was a reduction of force according to their records from the employer. I know what I am talking about. I know what I was told when I was let go. Idaho is an "at will" state so they would have fired me so that I could not have collected unemployment. So, please explain to me again why you do not think it is a reduction of force?
cbg
Super Moderator
All right, I'll grant that I may have overstated the case somewhat. I suppose in a small enough company a single individual being let go might be considered a reduction in force.
However, you specifically stated that you were let go so that they could replace you with someone trained. That is NOT a reduction in force no matter how you slice it. If their headcount was 50, you were let go and someone else hired, their headcount is still 50. There has been no reduction in their workforce. They still have the same number of employees.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that a reduction in force is the sole acceptable reason for receiving unemployment. In fact, the attached link to the eligibility requirements stated in the ID UI division website, does not support your contention.
http://cl.idaho.gov/id-ui-b2.htm#Eligibility
However, you specifically stated that you were let go so that they could replace you with someone trained. That is NOT a reduction in force no matter how you slice it. If their headcount was 50, you were let go and someone else hired, their headcount is still 50. There has been no reduction in their workforce. They still have the same number of employees.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that a reduction in force is the sole acceptable reason for receiving unemployment. In fact, the attached link to the eligibility requirements stated in the ID UI division website, does not support your contention.
http://cl.idaho.gov/id-ui-b2.htm#Eligibility
- Status
Share this page
