you would have the opportunity to argue whether you were fired for cause (which determines eligibility for unemployment insurance). in general that's hard to win if you just don't show up to your assigned work location, but there may be grounds to argue that mandatory relocation beyond a certain distance constitutes constructive dismissal.
but notice pay and severance are not mandatory for at will employees. the company basically gets to decide whether it's worth paying you not to sue them.
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.
If fired, I would be eligible for unemployment benefits essentially no matter what. The employer would have to prove gross or serious misconduct for benefits to be denied, and that would only result in a delay of eligibility, not an outright disqualification.
Also, the onus is on the company to demonstrate the misconduct, and the price of an attorney to make that case would far exceed the cost, and creates risk of litigation. So I mostly likely won't be begging on the street, which is a tremendous relief.
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. )
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.
I don't know what jurisdiction you are specifically discussing, but in California you cannot collect unemployment if you simply left your job. You must show "good cause" for leaving, where "good cause" includes things like violence and physical danger, but not "I thought I could get paid more across town".
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.
Getting fired is not the same as being laid off. If they fire you for insubordination (which is what not reporting for mandatory office attendance would be) or bad performance, they don't have to pay you anything. If you're laid off, most companies would give you at least a few months of pay in compensation.
Sure it does. It means they have two options. Let you stay remote, or fire you, but not “for cause” so you still can file unemployment. Otherwise you won’t be able to file.
If the whole thing about constructive termination is that they're doing this "voluntary resignation" thing to avoid unemployment benefits, then this makes sense. I had the initial impression it was about avoiding having to relocate, but it looks like I misconstrued.
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.
That is how firing works in the US. I guess it is rationalized that the fired person might do something vindictive.
I have responded by not giving notice when I quit. I see quitting as "firing my boss". Notice is for suckers. I do not give where I would not receive. I only gave notice at one job in the last ten years, and that was because the only reason I was quitting was because I was moving.
If you signal you will not move, do you get fired on the spot? Attempting to separate the decision from the action feels like a mechanism to try to avoid constructive dismissal[0]
>In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal.
but notice pay and severance are not mandatory for at will employees. the company basically gets to decide whether it's worth paying you not to sue them.
reply