It is easier to give such feedback, as long as the reasons for firing are lawful, the company can request summary judgement. I honestly would think that a firing for no reason would be more likely to spark a lawsuit that actually goes all the way to a jury (or at least through the discovery process), than a firing where lawful reasons are given.
> the company is bound by legal concerns to not reveal why the person was fired
I think this is a fairly common misconception. While you might sign an anti disparagement agreement when you were hired, those tend to be one-way and designed to protect the company. And the bar to prove a defamation case is extremely high.
AIUI, most employers simply do not disclose details on firings as a matter of policy, not law.
Non-lawyer here: one reason corporations won't give you info about exactly what they think you did wrong is it gives you no grounds to sue them for slander.
Similarly, no HR department will inform another HR department if you were fired or why, they'll only confirm dates of employment.
Haha, well, that's true, but I mostly meant that it looks like they might be being disingenuous about the real reasons for the firing so that they can sidestep the law about notification before a layoff. Especially when you consider that during any layoff they're probably dumping lower performers anyway.
Never heard that a company tell the reason got dismissed. they will confirm they worked there. saying performance or similar things can cause legal issues. At least in Europe. in some countries even code sentences are not allowed.
I don't think so. There can be good reasons not to tell the whole truth about why someone was fired, and it's normal for managers to have only a rough idea of how well people are performing, even in a small company.
Well, the company always wants to say it is a performance based firing, that reduces the company unemployment insurance liability. However, the companies don't get the final say in the matter.
Yup. This is why you will rarely, if ever, get a detailed explanation for your firing if you happen to be fired from somewhere. You might not get any explanation.
Similarly, don't expect to get feedback from a potential hiring manager as to why you didn't get a job you were interviewing for. Here, again, the company faces liability risk, and usually prefers to offer no comment on the matter.
It's not a legal requirement, yes, but any competent HR person or attorney will tell you publicly telling everyone in a company or on a team why someone was fired is a huge liability and will almost certainly result in a lawsuit after it happens a couple times.
I'm not sure the lack of an explanation from the company really means anything here. Most companies, especially the more risk-averse, will not tell you why you were let go unless there are clearly-documented performance milestones that were missed (i.e. not meeting your PIP goals). It's a potential liability, up to and including a lawsuit for wrongful termination, to justify a firing in any recordable way unless they've been exceptionally judicious in documenting cause.
Yes, but rightly or wrongly, the published reasons are broad so as to minimize exposure to lawsuits. Meaning that if they had to be specific, they would have less ability to fire people arbitrarily. They would have to have detailed records on why someone was not up to par, rather than the nebulous, reasons which are in common use these days and pass muster. Many times people are singled out retroactively, ie., in retaliation, or simply not being of same mind with new management or philosophy, irrespective of performance.
Wrongful firing lawsuits are incredibly common across all industries. The merit of the case is impossible to figure out from a news article. People can speculate all they want, but really no one knows the facts other than those privy to the actual lawsuit.
So every company with a legal team errs on the side of saying as little as possible.
reply