(OT) Employee Rights

[John from Riverside]

It's not supposed to be an equal bargin between one person and the other 999.  Allowing every employee who is terminated to sue a company DOES create economic harm to the other 999 employees.  A company is nothing more than a collective of individuals working towards a common goal.  To say they don't have the right to decide who can and can't work with them is hardly in the spirit of free enterprise that our country was founded on.

79551[/snapback]

 

 

[Guest Guest]

She is not SOOL....because in many right to work states, it is against the law to make a good faith offer, and then reneg on the offer. If they made a good faith offer, and she accepted it as a good faith offer, then it is as a contract. She would have to prove that they new her job could be eliminated with new ownership, but did not make her aware of that at the time of the offer. She has recourse for some severance package. Unfortunately, she might only be entitled for an moving expenses, some lose salary (probably not alot), and any hardship that resulted from the hiring (hardship would include buying supplies for the new job).

 

I remember while doing my MBA we studied a case very similar to this scenario. If you quit a job because you believed the offer was in good faith, but in reality, the company knew the job might be eliminated it is illegal.

 

I agree...see a lawyer for the specifics.

[Steven in MD]

That was me not signed in above

[slothrop]

She is not SOOL....because in many right to work states, it is against the law to make a good faith offer, and then reneg on the offer.  If they made a good faith offer, and she accepted it as a good faith offer, then it is as a contract. She would have to prove that they new her job could be eliminated with new ownership, but did not make her aware of that at the time of the offer.  She has recourse for some severance package.  Unfortunately, she might only be entitled for an moving expenses, some lose salary (probably not alot), and any hardship that resulted from the hiring (hardship would include buying supplies for the new job). 

 

I remember while doing my MBA we studied a case very similar to this scenario.  If you quit a job because you believed the offer was in good faith, but in reality, the company knew the job might be eliminated it is illegal. 

 

I agree...see a lawyer for the specifics.

79696[/snapback]

 

As I understood the scenerio, the employer did not reneg on an offer - rather an offer was made, she accepted, and she worked for two weeks. Therefore, because she was an employee the doctrine of employment at will would allow the employer to fire her for any reason whatsoever (except for race, age, religion, etc, etc).

[tennesseeboy]

She should contact a lawyer for a consultation immediately.  It may cost a hundred or two, but that will allow her to get the information she needs to know.

79320[/snapback]

 

AD has a point. The law of the state is a critical thing, as to whether it is employment at will, and even if it is employment at will (such as Tennessee or New York, for instance) there is a different state law that applies.

 

Now she may have a cause of action for something called promissory estoppel. I make a representation to her upon which she relies to quit her job and move. The courts may enforce it against her.

 

Anyway it is worth her while to consult with an attorney.

[slothrop]

AD has a point.  The law of the state is a critical thing, as to whether it is employment at will, and even if it is employment at will (such as Tennessee or New York, for instance) there is a different state law that applies.

 

Now she may have a cause of action for something called promissory estoppel.  I make a representation to her upon which she relies to quit her job and move.  The courts may enforce it against her.

 

Anyway it is worth her while to consult with an attorney.

79798[/snapback]

 

promissory estoppel would not apply and there are two reasons:

 

1) Most significantly, if promissory estoppel would apply, it would obliterate the employment at will doctrine. NO court would ever allow that.

 

2) Specific to this case, even if promissory estoppel could be asserted it would not apply here. For promissory estoppel to apply you must show that there was i) a promise made with no consideration (it is a consideration substitute); ii) the promisee detrimentally relied on the promise; and iii) the promisee was damaged. The problem here is that the "promise" was for consideration (you work and I pay you) so contract principals would apply (but these are trumped by employment at will). Even if the promise was not for consideration the promise was not to provide employment for a specific duration as would happen in an employment contract. Thus, the employer only "promised" to hire her - but they did not promise for any specific duration. Therfore, it can not be argued that any promise was broken (or for that matter that there was a breach of an oral contract.)

 

Bottom line: if this is a state, like NY, where employment at will is operative, she is screwed.

[Rico]

It's Maryland, & MD is not a right-to-work state.

 

Thanks again , I'm gonna cut & paste the relevant responses & E-mail them to her.

[Steven in MD]

It's Maryland, & MD is not a right-to-work state.

 

Thanks again , I'm gonna cut & paste the relevant responses & E-mail them to her.

79857[/snapback]

Hey Rico....If she needs a good employment attorney in MD, let me know. I live here and know a few employment lawyers. Maryland a work at will state (or so I believe from my employee handbook). Like I said previously, the courts will decide if there were damages. Employment for 2 weeks might not be enough consideration.

 

I hope everyone understand that in most corporate situations, employment at will usually is not taken lightly because the courts usually side with the employee and not the corporation. If she quit a job because of a promise, and she only worked two weeks and the position was eliminated, one can aruge (and probably win) that there was NEVER a position in the first place.

[Rico]

Hey Rico....If she needs a good employment attorney in MD, let me know.  I live here and know a few employment lawyers.  Maryland a work at will state (or so I believe from my employee handbook).  Like I said previously, the courts will decide if there were damages.  Employment for 2 weeks might not be enough consideration.

 

I hope everyone understand that in most corporate situations, employment at will usually is not taken lightly because the courts usually side with the employee and not the corporation.  If she quit a job because of a promise, and she only worked two weeks and the position was eliminated, one can aruge (and probably win) that there was NEVER a position in the first place.

80093[/snapback]

Thanks, Steven... I will talk to her tomorrow and see what she thinks.

[GG]

 

American law screws workers in the worst way. Don't get me started on this topic. GO BILLS!

79465[/snapback]

 

Is that why US unemployment rate is roughly half that of Western Europe?