Wrongful termination?

[Concernedserver]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I was terminated from my job yesterday a few days before my 90 days were up. I'm curious if there is any warrant to my feeling of wrongful termination. The reason was "there was a general consensus I didn't want to be there." This was said to me by a manager I only worked with 2 or 3 times and who I believed had targeted me from the beginning for no particular reason. I was verbally written up for following the exact protocol that was sent out a week prior when you are going to be late. I never signed a document and she never discussed with me and when I asked her about it she said it didn't matter that I followed protocol and that I didn't do anything wrong but this is what she decided. In the following weeks I asked her on multiple occasions if there was anything I could do to improve my performance or otherwise and she said no everything was great. I asked and felt this way as I was the only server not working out large valentines event which was very strange . The following week when I came into work I was terminated. I was never talked to or did I discuss not enjoying my work place in fact I loved working there. I also had top sales and tips quite frequently and got along with everyone in the work place. It felt like my termination was sheerly based on the fact she didn't like me. I spoke with our other managers as no one knew or agreed but I was terminated by the general manager who is standing in while other managers are on maternity leave. The whole situation felt schematically plotted out as she just happened to do it before my 90 days were up, where I wouldn't have an additional paycheck, and just a week or two before our general manager who hired me returned from maternity leave. I am a single mother supporting a family - and I don't want to throw around terms like unlawful termination for no reason- but can someone simply terminate you for a reason such as above when completely false???

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I was terminated from my job yesterday a few days before my 90 days were up. I'm curious if there is any warrant to my feeling of wrongful termination. The reason was "there was a general consensus I didn't want to be there." This was said to me by a manager I only worked with 2 or 3 times and who I believed had targeted me from the beginning for no particular reason. I was verbally written up for following the exact protocol that was sent out a week prior when you are going to be late. I never signed a document and she never discussed with me and when I asked her about it she said it didn't matter that I followed protocol and that I didn't do anything wrong but this is what she decided. In the following weeks I asked her on multiple occasions if there was anything I could do to improve my performance or otherwise and she said no everything was great. I asked and felt this way as I was the only server not working out large valentines event which was very strange . The following week when I came into work I was terminated. I was never talked to or did I discuss not enjoying my work place in fact I loved working there. I also had top sales and tips quite frequently and got along with everyone in the work place. It felt like my termination was sheerly based on the fact she didn't like me. I spoke with our other managers as no one knew or agreed but I was terminated by the general manager who is standing in while other managers are on maternity leave. The whole situation felt schematically plotted out as she just happened to do it before my 90 days were up, where I wouldn't have an additional paycheck, and just a week or two before our general manager who hired me returned from maternity leave. I am a single mother supporting a family - and I don't want to throw around terms like unlawful termination for no reason- but can someone simply terminate you for a reason such as above when completely false???

It's absolutely legal to terminate your employment because somebody doesn't like you.

They don't need any reason to fire you, and this is not a wrongful termination.

 

[cbg]

A wrongful termination does not mean that you were fired for something you didn't do; it means you were terminated for a reason prohibited by law.

It is absolutely legal for someone to fire you because she didn't like you. This was not a wrongful termination. It may or may not have been fair, but the law does not give a hoot whether it was fair. The law only cares if it was legal, and it was. Google, employment at will.

The good news is that you should be eligible for unemployment. Do not hesitate to apply, if you haven't already, because it is not retroactive.

 

[QuanHenry]

The good news is that you should be eligible for unemployment. Do not hesitate to apply, if you haven't already, because it is not retroactive.

Doubt it. You have to prove that you are unemployed to no fault of your own. OP was fired for a reason, however dumb a reason it may be, theres no way youre getting UC.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Doubt it. You have to prove that you are unemployed to no fault of your own. OP was fired for a reason, however dumb a reason it may be, theres no way youre getting UC.

This will be good. Please pass the popcorn.

 

[eerelations]

Doubt it. You have to prove that you are unemployed to no fault of your own. OP was fired for a reason, however dumb a reason it may be, theres no way youre getting UC.

Well you obviously know next to nothing about UI rules.

Termination reasons that will disqualify UI applicants for benefits:

quitting (except under very narrow circumstances);
gross misconduct;
insubordination; and
willful poor performance.

OP's employment did not terminate for any of these reasons, ergo OP has a very good shot at getting UI benefits.

 

[cbg]

Doubt it. You have to prove that you are unemployed to no fault of your own. OP was fired for a reason, however dumb a reason it may be, theres no way youre getting UC.

That's where you're wrong. Unless the employer is able to prove a misconduct reason, and moreover a misconduct reason that the OP knew or should have known could lead to her dismissal, she's quite likely to be approved.

 

[QuanHenry]

Well you obviously know next to nothing about UI rules.

Termination reasons that will disqualify UI applicants for benefits:

quitting (except under very narrow circumstances);
gross misconduct;
insubordination; and
willful poor performance.

OP's employment did not terminate for any of these reasons, ergo OP has a very good shot at getting UI benefits.

Well see but i doubt it seriously. the boss will argue she was fired for showing up late and poor performance and probabbly win. Let us know what happens op, so i can throw it in steve and eerelations face when im right.

 

[eerelations]

Well see but i doubt it seriously. the boss will argue she was fired for showing up late and poor performance and probabbly win. Let us know what happens op, so i can throw it in steve and eerelations face when im right.

Please list your professional qualifications vis a vis the unemployment insurance system and related regulations.

 

[commentator]

Well see but i doubt it seriously. the boss will argue she was fired for showing up late and poor performance and probabbly win. Let us know what happens op, so i can throw it in steve and eerelations face when im right.

You're wrong here guy, and you can throw it in my face when it happens too. Don't know where you are from or what you think you know about unemployment, but a person who shows up for work every day and "does the work to the best of their ability" which is of course what she needs to say when filing for the unemployment claim, can very legally be terminated, especially during her probationary period. However, if the company cannot show a valid misconduct work related reason to terminate, with progressive discipline involved in most cases, there is a good likelihood that unemployment will be approved, provided the person has enough covered wages in the last two years to set up an unemployment claim monetarily.

They may try to claim "poor performance' but that has to be such that you were formally warned, you were given an opportunity to improve your performance and you deliberately chose not to do so. It also had to be a legitimate performance goal that you were able to meet, had successfully met in the past, and then had deliberately failed to meet due to your own choice, in spite of warnings.

A "verbal write up" or two to a new employee about the procedures to follow when one was late does not make a progressive disciplinary action for tardiness, where the employee knows that if they are late again without following the appropriate steps, then they can be terminated for tardiness. and they choose to do it anyway.

But overall, it sounds like this employer just decided to terminate the employee because she was "not a good fit" which is the smartest thing for them to do if they decide quickly that the person is not what they want in this job, as it sounds like the supervisor did. This is best practice, as even though the person may be approved for unemployment after this discharge, there will be very few wages from work performed there to be charged to this employer by the unemployment system. Most of the claim (if this person has a claim to set up and draw from) will come from former places that she has worked, and will cost this last employer very little.

 

[eerelations]

Interesting that when I asked QuanHenry for his/her qualifications in this area, he/she disappeared!!!

 

[Proserpina]

I have no doubt that we've seen him wearing another mask.

 

[Proserpina]

Well see but i doubt it seriously. the boss will argue she was fired for showing up late and poor performance and probabbly win. Let us know what happens op, so i can throw it in steve and eerelations face when im right.

And seriously - I "live" over in family law and even *I* know you're so far wrong that you're knocking on King Wrong's begging for access. Or forgiveness.

 

[eerelations]

I have no doubt that we've seen him wearing another mask.

If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, then I am a little bit surprised that he didn't take the OP's side and say something like "Don't worry bro/sis, you'll get UI, these people say you only might but they're a bunch of wimpy females, I know fersure that you will, you know I'm right 'cause I'm such a manly man." He's always on the side of the OP, no matter how wrong OP is. Also, he didn't attack cbg, which is what he usually does.

 

[QuanHenry]

Interesting that when I asked QuanHenry for his/her qualifications in this area, he/she disappeared!!!

You know you are wrong so you bring up something totally irrelevant. Not smart!

The OP was pretty vague, we dont know the whole story. If her boss can say she was late and didnt have a good attitude, its over, she will get denied. It sounds like she was warned about her conduct at some point as well. The burden of proof is on the claimaint, and in this case the claimant appears to just be an emotional person that just got canned. Your 30 years mean nothing in this case, stop it.

Edit- Also, I posted a thread last night that still hasnt appeared anywhere on the site. What gives?