Wrongful Termination

[cheboto]

What recourse(s) do I have, if any? The following is a recap of the actual slander/defamation resulting in my termination: On Sat. (7/30/11) I was called (on company radio) about an hour before my shift ended, to come in to the office and talk with the VP of operations, after my shift. I had been an employee there for over three years. When I got to the office I was told by the VP, that the owner received a call the previous evening (7/29) informing her that there had been "improper conduct between me and a Hispanic female". I asked, what was I supposed have done and with whom? He told me that he didn't know any more about it than what he was telling me, and that she (the owner) was so mad that she didn't want to be there, and that she'd left instructions for him to fire me and give me my final check (which he did). I was given no other information than this.
I asked ~ why not put me on unpaid leave until an investigation was complete, instead of taking my livelihood away on an accusation only, with no proof. He said she was adamant about terminating my employment. I then demanded an investigation. The VP then said he would talk to her and call me back later that same day (7/30). He didn't. From the time I left the office until now I have not heard one word. NOTE: They did not contest the Unemployment Compensation request.

 

[esteele]

As a general matter, if you were an "at-will" employee, then your employer could terminate you for any reason as long as said reason did not contravene a law or a contract. Even assuming you did not do anything to this particular female coworker, it would not matter. A company can terminate an at-will employee based solely on an allegation of misconduct. (FWIW, it is telling you do not deny in your post having some type of untoward encounter with this complaining coworker.)'

Your demand for an "investigation" is of no moment. As an at-will employee, your employer does not have to investigate allegations of sexual harassment to determine the underlying truthfulness of the contentions. A company can simply terminate the employees accused of sexual harassment, as your employer did here.

Nor do you have a slander claim against the employer. You theoretically could have a slander claim against the coworker who accused you of sexual harassment. However, you will face substantial hurdles (e.g., cost of litigation; little prospect for significant financial recovery) in successfully pursuing a slander claim against.

In sum, basic unfairness alone does not constitute grounds for a wrongful discharge action for at-will employees.

 

[cheboto]

TO esteele ~ Thank you for your reply. If i interpret this correctly, a discharged employee in an at-will state is not entitled to 'due process' and has no rights whatsoever. Is this a correct assumption? It was never alleged that the accusation was by a co-worker. I drove a transit bus route, and the indication I received it (the call) was from a disgruntled passenger, of which we dealt with them everyday. This was a total shock as in the 3+ years with them, I was considered a model employee with a spotless record.

 

[cheboto]

I just saw the parts about denying any such action. Ok, I DENY IT EMPHATICALLY. I DID NOTHING to provoke that call or termination. There has never been any type of accusation against my professionalism. I was and am shocked to discover that the employee has not rights in this state...

 

[Michael Wechsler]

TO esteele ~ Thank you for your reply. If i interpret this correctly, a discharged employee in an at-will state is not entitled to 'due process' and has no rights whatsoever. Is this a correct assumption? It was never alleged that the accusation was by a co-worker. I drove a transit bus route, and the indication I received it (the call) was from a disgruntled passenger, of which we dealt with them everyday. This was a total shock as in the 3+ years with them, I was considered a model employee with a spotless record.

Actually those are the hard facts looking at the strict letter of the law - without an employment contract (and a state or jurisdiction that has "right to work" statutes to protect employees), there is no right for a company to have to keep you employed. There is no "right to due process" for employment in the private sector although there may be other procedures in place which require certain formalities. cbg may be able to address this better but does your company have an employee handbook as to how they handle complaints against an employee? How large is the company? Did they give you a letter of termination? What else can you tell us with regard to paperwork they may have sent you.

 

[army judge]

OP, all of the previous responses to your query were correct and on point.

I can add one comment to the previous replies.

An employer doesn't even need to supply you with a reason to say, "You're fired!"

Bottom line, no explanation is required when you are told your services are no longer required.

That is why I advise my clients to simply say, "We have terminated your services with our firm effective immediately. We will be sending you your final check in accordance with state law."







Note: In some states, if one is summarily terminated, you must be paid on the spot.

In other states, you must be paid within 24 hours.

In other states, you must be paid on the next pay day, or within a few days of the termination.

In your state, AZ, there is one thing you may have against your employer.

In Arizona an employer MUST pay the terminated employee within THREE working days of the termination, or by the next payday; whichever comes first!!.

This is the website of the Arizona state agency that enforces "wage laws" in your state.

http://www.ica.state.az.us/Labor/Labor_WagClm_FAQs_Wage_Payment_Laws.aspx


Arizona (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23-353)

If employee is fired: Final check must be given within three working days, or on the next scheduled payday, whichever occurs first.


If employee quits:Final check must be given on the next scheduled payday.




http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/em...mployment-employer-ending-paycheck-final.html


This information is relative to an "at will" employee, only!

By the way, it does follow "due process" guidelines.

How, you might wonder?

Well, if you want to QUIT, you need NOT give the employer notice, either!

Hence, it is a FAIR and EFFECTIVE practice for employee and employer!

 

[Michael Wechsler]

An employer doesn't even need to supply you with a reason to say, "You're fired!"
Bottom line, no explanation is required when you are told your services are no longer required.
That is why I advise my clients to simply say, "We have terminated your services with our firm effective immediately. We will be sending you your final check in accordance with state law."

This is some of the best advice I've seen on this forum. The reason why I asked about the particulars of your termination is because employers only get themselves into trouble when they say far more than what army judge advises. Without saying anything, there wouldn't be any fuel for the fire of a potential lawsuit for wrongful termination, e.g. evidence of discrimination or sexual harassment, etc.

 

[army judge]

This is some of the best advice I've seen on this forum. The reason why I asked about the particulars of your termination is because employers only get themselves into trouble when they say far more than what army judge advises. Without saying anything, there wouldn't be any fuel for the fire of a potential lawsuit for wrongful termination, e.g. evidence of discrimination or sexual harassment, etc.

Professor, it applies in most situations, too.

Targets of law enforcement probes NEVER make it better by talking with law enforcement, either.

Those involved in civil matters, should never give depositions.

One is ONLY required to testify in open court and under oath, constitutional protections not withstanding!

Finally, it applies in situations where humans become quarrelsome.

Most of the time, it is better to simply turn and unceremoniously, walk away; rather than stay and argue.

 

[Proserpina]

And just as the cherry on top of this excellent advice, the fact that the company did not fight the UI claim is meaningless - and it absolutely does NOT mean the company is admitting any wrongdoing.

 

[esteele]

OP, if you are an at-will employee, you have far fewer rights than counterparts who are under a collective bargaining agreement or who have individual employment contracts. If you are employed on an at-will basis, you can be fired simply because a disgruntled passenger makes a baseless complaint against you.

BTW, it is not the jurisdiction which dictates whether you are at-will or not. Every state except Montana allows the "employment at-will doctrine" to constitute the "default" relationship between employers and employees. However, some employees in every state have union contracts, individual contracts, civil service protection and other contractual or institutional protections which take them outside of the employment at-will realm.

To this point, OP, did you work for a county or municipal government? If so, did the county or municipality provide its employees with civil service protection? If you were covered under a civil service protection scheme, you would likely have greater employment protection. Under such a scenario, your employer could only terminate you "for cause."

Separately, the above advice from the other responders is generally spot on. However, if you are party or a subpoenaed witness in a civil proceeding, you can be compelled to appear for a deposition. Short of the slight possibly of "pleading the 5rh," you would not have a practical choice in the matter.

 

[cbg]

BTW, someone upthread mentioned "right to work". Right to work means that you do not have to join a union to get work. It is employment at will, which doctrine is followed in 49 states and sometimes in the 50th, that means that either you or the employer can end the employment relationship for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason, as long as it is not an illegal reason.

Being fired for something you did not do is NOT an illegal reason.