Many U.S. states have labor law that cover this. And any company that I have seen do anything similar to this has lost money to both the state and the claimant.
Typically, at least for at-will states, the employer simply terminates you without stating any reason. Very simple for the company and the employee at least gets unemployment pay.
Typically it's laid off or terminated without cause, in which case the person gets unemployment, the business takes a hit on their unemployment insurance but it's typically no hassle as long as it wasn't for a reason that's explicitly against the law, like discrimination.
"Terminated with cause" avoids the hit in unemployment insurance to the business, the person doesn't get to collect, but they can sue you for wrongful term if it really should have been the first category -- here's where you need to document gross negligence.
Constructive dismissal is legal. The point is that if an employee can show that you changed the rules to make them quit, they get unemployment benefits.
Yes and constructive dismissal is a legal concept enabling an employee who experienced something like that to sue and receive compensation for unfair dismissal. Companies generally don't like to be sued and don't put themselves in positions where they could be sued.
This is talking about things that sound awfully close to constructive dismissal.
The basic idea is to claim that the victim chose to quit, and was not fired. It’s not just done in layoffs (see twitters recent “if you don’t accept grossly changed working conditions we interpret that as resignation”) it’s also used in retaliation.
Claiming that they quit is as I understand it a violation of US labor law.
Note that while much employment in the US is considered “at will”that does not mean you can be fired for any reason. Plenty of reasons are illegal, and constructive dismissal is just another illegal tactic companies use to try and avoid consequences of illegal actions.
If you’re ever in a position where your employer says anything along the lines of “we will take [failure to] X as indicating you are resigning”, that’s illegal and also set up a paper trail explicitly stating that you are not resigning.
Your employer is not your friend.
Your employer is not your family.
HR is not on your side. Ever. The sole goal of HR is to minimize corporate liability.
Depending on the exact facts of a particular case that would be considered constructive dismissal under the labor laws in most US states. Employers can terminate at-will employees at any time for any reason or no reason (with a few limited exceptions). But if an employer substantially changes the terms of your employment — like by forcing you to work in an office — and fires you for cause then you should still be able to obtain unemployment insurance. Of course, as a practical matter it's better to just avoid the whole mess if you have better options.
That can probably be described as gross misconduct or insubordination, and be used as a valid reason for immediate dismissal with no benefits. Then you'd have to argue that the company's demand was not reasonable, and then it sounds like you're pretty much in the same place as if you argued constructive dismissal to begin with. I have no idea if they're legally or practically equivalent.
Yes, America has a concept of constructive dismissal. If an employer drastically changes the employee's working conditions or assignments and the employee then resigns, they might still be able to claim unemployment insurance as if they had been laid off. Authorities look at several criteria when making that determination but it's kind of a judgment call depending on the facts of a particular case.
If anyone wants to know how this applies to their particular situation then they should really consult a labor attorney. You're unlikely to get completely accurate legal information here.
Still, of someone is terminated with cause, that legally means that the company was severely offended, to the point that they have decided to prevent unemployment insurance payout. It's serious.
It's not just "we don't think it's profitable for you to work here".
That is the point: if an employee quits, they're not entitled to unemployment.
However, if they were "constructively dismissed" that is treated as a layoff/involuntary termination and the employee can get unemployment.
Note that the OP mentioned that their remote work agreement was voided. They weren't constructively dismissed, it sounds like they were actually terminated. (A company can't simply decide to unilaterally void part of an employment agreement without voiding the entire agreement. That's not how contracts work. )
Constructive dismissals aren’t necessarily illegal, they’re just not resignations. A “resignation” that is actually a constructive dismissal would usually qualify that employee for any legal benefits they’d receive as a fired employee, like unemployment.
In most of the US, "wrongful termination" is an urban legend. In over 40 states, employment is "at-will". You can be fired for any reason or no reason.
The exception is for people working under a contract that explicitly spells out remedies for termination without cause. Almost nobody has a contract like this.
From a NYS perspective: At least for the purposes of drawing unemployment, there's a similar concept here, "constructive dismissal". I know someone who had their job changed almost completely underneath them, into something that they had repeatedly stated was unacceptable to them. They quit, and were able to claim unemployment exactly as if they had been fired without cause.
Many U.S. states have labor law that cover this. And any company that I have seen do anything similar to this has lost money to both the state and the claimant.
Typically, at least for at-will states, the employer simply terminates you without stating any reason. Very simple for the company and the employee at least gets unemployment pay.
reply