Just Blue
Senior Member
So there will be a TOS to the like?
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Assisting law enforcement with child abduction attempt resulted in termination
- Thread starter evlreala
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
So there will be a TOS to the like?
eerelations
Senior Member
Just go with me on this and you'll be OK.
Just Blue
Senior Member
PayrollHRGuy
Senior Member
Bad move unless you have already gotten a job. It will disqualify you from unemployment.
Not necessarily. In my and many states, a job from which you've been fired as opposed to laid off is always unsuitable. To do otherwise, and the employer that fails to disqualify a claimant can rehire them and get the claimant on a refusal, or get a another shot at making a case for misconduct.
commentator
Senior Member
Agree. Else a person who was fired and prevailed in a hearing could be recalled by the same employer and later forced into a quit or terminated for better unemployment proof cause. When they terminate an employee, the employer is considered to be severing the employer/employee relationship and this does not make offering the old job back an acceptable or suitable job for unemployment purposes. I'd be extremely leery of going back to work for H.D. or anywhere after being terminated, going to the news channel, provoking public embarrassment of the employer, and then being offered my job back. Because you'd better believe there's a target on your back at that point.
That said, I sort of agree/disagree with the whole thing of whether it was "the right thing to do" that the person (and his co worker) abandoned their job site and whole hog took off after the assumed drunk man who was kidnapping a child. I thought not jumping in and beating the crap out of the person (who might even have turned out to have been the legitimate father picking up the child in a disputed custody situation) was good judgment, and one would almost have to intervene/investigate when seeing something like this.
But I do sort of question the both of them abandoning their job and chasing after the person in a vehicle. I have seen cases where filling station employees jumped in the car and chase down drive-aways. But they were leaving their cash register and the site behind.Wonder how this would play out in an unemployment scenario? Home Depot used to always use a third party contractor for their unemployment hearings so it will not be local people dealing with this. They'll argue that this hero's action does constitute job abandonment, regardless of motive or reason. Unless he was kidnapping YOU, or the building was on fire, at which point it would be something beyond your reasonable choice, leaving your job without notice during a shift tends to look like misconduct.
That said, I sort of agree/disagree with the whole thing of whether it was "the right thing to do" that the person (and his co worker) abandoned their job site and whole hog took off after the assumed drunk man who was kidnapping a child. I thought not jumping in and beating the crap out of the person (who might even have turned out to have been the legitimate father picking up the child in a disputed custody situation) was good judgment, and one would almost have to intervene/investigate when seeing something like this.
But I do sort of question the both of them abandoning their job and chasing after the person in a vehicle. I have seen cases where filling station employees jumped in the car and chase down drive-aways. But they were leaving their cash register and the site behind.Wonder how this would play out in an unemployment scenario? Home Depot used to always use a third party contractor for their unemployment hearings so it will not be local people dealing with this. They'll argue that this hero's action does constitute job abandonment, regardless of motive or reason. Unless he was kidnapping YOU, or the building was on fire, at which point it would be something beyond your reasonable choice, leaving your job without notice during a shift tends to look like misconduct.
PayrollHRGuy
Senior Member
The states do vary. I be willing to bet that this would be a case where the employer said the person that made the original termination made a mistake and was overruled. I've had that happen on UI cases I've worked in states like yours and it was considered a refusal.
commentator
Senior Member
I also saw from the original post that this person was terminated for "violating safety policy" not for abandoning the worksite. Extremely poor choice if they're going to try to argue that the employee "did something dangerous" and was terminated for it. So I bet they did want to offer the job back, that one's a greater chance for approval of unemployment than misconduct due to job abandonment.
But given the length of time it will take to work this one out in unemployment, I'd just be very diligent about looking for something else if I were this person. Because if he did go back to H.D. I bet he'll be out again very soon for some other reason. And this has been so long ago that I suspect it has already happened, either way.
But given the length of time it will take to work this one out in unemployment, I'd just be very diligent about looking for something else if I were this person. Because if he did go back to H.D. I bet he'll be out again very soon for some other reason. And this has been so long ago that I suspect it has already happened, either way.
Ohiogal
Queen Bee
My hubby works for Home Depot and watched the video. He rattled off three different violations of the employment code that OP violated. Quite frankly Home Depot had a right to fire this guy. And legally Home Depot did nothing wrong. From my attorney standpoint.
PayrollHRGuy
Senior Member
I think it is pretty obvious upstream didn't like the bad press and reversed the decision of someone downstream.
eerelations
Senior Member
And that's legal too. (And a like button to you too!)
Ohiogal, I think we established that this was technically a legal termination. (But we appreciate your input.)
The discussion is now about whether or not OP will be entitled to UI benefits after he turned down the offer of his job back. My personal (i.e., non-legal) opinion? He shouldn't be. But according to the UI regs in OP's state? I don't know. Hopefully someone who knows can weigh in on this. (Maybe someone already has? Sorry, if that's the case then I missed it. Apologies all 'round then.)
Last edited:
LdiJ
Senior Member
And that's legal too. (And a like button to you too!)
Ohiogal, I think we established that this was technically a legal termination. (But we appreciate your input.)
I have a feeling that this is one that HD might choose not to challenge, for the same reason that someone upstream tried to reverse the decision of someone downstream.
eerelations
Senior Member
Sorry, I seem to be missing big chunks of this thread. Who is HD?