Possible Wrongful Termination/Harassment

[manchesterblack]

Here's the situation:

My friend works for a company. Her position was being eliminated. Her boss, a high ranking VP, has a closed door meeting with a manager in a different office and the next day they tell my friend the manager in the other office has agreed to hire her for a position there.

Three weeks in they're threatening to begin termination proceedings for her not performing to the standards they require.

The manager is telling her people in her position are required to, let's say, close 40 case files a day.

Speaking to someone in the office who was hired two weeks before her in the same position, this person is only at 35 cases a day and is receiving no such warnings. As it would also happen my friend had to undergo several time consuming office aptitude tests for the position (she has extensive office experience) and the other person was not required to take these same tests.

My friend was trained to do the work using one method but the standard practice she's finding is to do it entirely another.

My theory is that her former boss the VP called in a favor and got her hired but that manager, unable to say no to that VP, hired her and is now attempting to find ways to terminate her.

Valid theory or not, (and I admit this is a personal theory based on my own past experience in a similar situation and an assessment of the circumstances but of course is totally irrelevant) it seems to me that my friend has been poorly trained, perhaps intentionally, and held to unrealistic standards others are not subjected to. If she were to be fired it's my thought she file a wrongful termination lawsuit with perhaps a side of harassment for treatment and squalid working conditions (the office fridge has mold, the restrooms are never restocked with toilet paper, seat covers, soap or paper towels--people have to bring in their own soap and TP--and this is not a small mom and pop, we're talking a publicly traded Fortune 500 company here).

What would be the general viewpoint here? Would she have a case, a leg to stand on...any insight would be appreciated. Thank you.

 

[army judge]

An employer doesn't need to use subterfuge, shenanigans, and trickeration to discharge an employee.
An employer can simply discharge any employee for the most unusual reasons.
There are a few exceptions (such as a person having a work contract, or laws being broken), but based upon what you've posted, this doesn't appear to be what is happening in the matter of your friend.

 

[Proserpina]

Here's the situation:

My friend works for a company. Her position was being eliminated. Her boss, a high ranking VP, has a closed door meeting with a manager in a different office and the next day they tell my friend the manager in the other office has agreed to hire her for a position there.

Three weeks in they're threatening to begin termination proceedings for her not performing to the standards they require.

The manager is telling her people in her position are required to, let's say, close 40 case files a day.

Speaking to someone in the office who was hired two weeks before her in the same position, this person is only at 35 cases a day and is receiving no such warnings. As it would also happen my friend had to undergo several time consuming office aptitude tests for the position (she has extensive office experience) and the other person was not required to take these same tests.

My friend was trained to do the work using one method but the standard practice she's finding is to do it entirely another.

My theory is that her former boss the VP called in a favor and got her hired but that manager, unable to say no to that VP, hired her and is now attempting to find ways to terminate her.

Valid theory or not, (and I admit this is a personal theory based on my own past experience in a similar situation and an assessment of the circumstances but of course is totally irrelevant) it seems to me that my friend has been poorly trained, perhaps intentionally, and held to unrealistic standards others are not subjected to. If she were to be fired it's my thought she file a wrongful termination lawsuit with perhaps a side of harassment for treatment and squalid working conditions (the office fridge has mold, the restrooms are never restocked with toilet paper, seat covers, soap or paper towels--people have to bring in their own soap and TP--and this is not a small mom and pop, we're talking a publicly traded Fortune 500 company here).

What would be the general viewpoint here? Would she have a case, a leg to stand on...any insight would be appreciated. Thank you.

I'm not sure you understand what a "wrongful termination" is and isn't.

Being set up for failure is not a wrongful term.
Neither is complaining about shoddy housekeeping in the office.

A wrongful term in California is defined as terminating an employee for reasons based on the discrimination laws (age, gender, ethnicity etc.) ; for participating in union activity; for refusing to carry out an activity that violates the law.

This is not a wrongful term.

 

[manchesterblack]

Followup: I found this: In California, an employment contract of indefinite duration is generally deemed to be at the will of either party (Cal. Lab. Code § 2922). However, the "at will" relationship can be expressly or impliedly modified by the employer. For example, if the employer issues handbooks or other publications to employees which suggest that employees will not be terminated or disciplined in accordance with certain procedures, the employee may argue that the employee was wrongfully demoted or terminated if the company fails to follow its own procedures in demoting firing the employee. Similarly, if the employer provides oral assurances of continued employment, the "at will" relationship may be found to have been modified, which may require the employer to establish "good cause" prior to terminating the employee.

Reading the above, here's a scenario: They tell my friend her training period is two months during which time she is supposed to learn the procedures and at the end of that time be expected to perform at the level of closing 40 case files a day. After a month they tell her she's not at 40, too bad, you're not cutting it and you're fired. Does that not constitute a wrongful termination?

They had, either in an employee handbook or by verbal agreement, an agreed upon scenario in which there existed a timeframe in which to learn the policies and procedures and an expectation to perform at a certain level at the end of that timeframe. Prior to the end of that time they fire her for not meeting the goals set for the end of that timeframe. This would violate the terms of the written and/or oral agreement and constitute a wrongful termination. Am I wrong in that?

 

[cbg]

No. That does not constitute a wrongful termination. Yes, you are wrong in that.

 

[manchesterblack]

I'm not sure I understand how it doesn't. I get that wrongful termination usually is understood to be firing based on being part of a protected class. But the scope can be broadened to include what I quoted above, at least according california employment law, far as I can tell. And if it it isn't called wrongful termination, what is it? Simple breach of contract? An oral and/or written implied contract exists based on what they told her about the length of time she had for training and expectations and also what's stated in the handbook. If they don't abide by those terms that's a violation law, right?

 

[army judge]

An employee handbook carries somewhere within it's copious body of work a disclaimer declaring that it's not in anyway an employment contract.

I suggest you Google the term "at will".

In 99% of employment situations the employer isn't bound to permit the employee to work a set number of years, or even days.

On the other hand, the employee isn't a slave, required to stay in the employ of his current employer until death do them part.

It's a Bowie knife, as it cuts equally as well either way.

 

[manchesterblack]

I know what at will means. I know there are no real rules for firing people. But it seems like if a person is just getting outright screwed over there ought to be some legal recourse. That's what I'm looking for, something that falls in the scope of "what they're doing is wrong and they can be held somewhat accountabe for it."

 

[army judge]

I know what at will means. I know there are no real rules for firing people. But it seems like if a person is just getting outright screwed over there ought to be some legal recourse. That's what I'm looking for, something that falls in the scope of "what they're doing is wrong and they can be held somewhat accountabe for it."

Get in line, I'll bet millions of others are, too.

You won't find it.

The law doesn't have a remedy for every perceived transgression.

It can't stamp out prejudice, crime, or unfairness.

Lobby your legislators to bake more "cookie" law.

What you're seeking doesn't exist.

 

[Betty3]

I agree with the other responders - would not be a wrongful termination. There would be no recourse due to a wrongful termination based on what was posted.

 

[Proserpina]

I know what at will means. I know there are no real rules for firing people. But it seems like if a person is just getting outright screwed over there ought to be some legal recourse. That's what I'm looking for, something that falls in the scope of "what they're doing is wrong and they can be held somewhat accountabe for it."

Sorry, but I'm not convinced you do actually understand what does and does not count in terms of a wrongful term.

There are rules.
There are prohibitions.

What we cannot do though is try to find a loophole where none exists.

"Wrong" does not mean "illegal" - and that's really the end of the line.