Firing employee during probation

[Silvia Gross]

What is the name of your state?California

Can I fire an employee for excessive absences before the 90 days probation period?

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state?California

Can I fire an employee for excessive absences before the 90 days probation period?

Yes....based on information provided in your post.

 

[FlyingRon]

An employer can fire an employee just because he doesn't like what color socks he's wearing.

The only prohibitions is firing someone for some protected reason (race, creed, age, etc...).

 

[cbg]

Can I fire an employee for excessive absences before the 90 days probation period?

Yes, unless the employee has a contract or CBA that says otherwise.

In fact, I would encourage doing so. An employee who is excessively absent during their probation is not going to improve once it's over.

 

[NeilTheCop]

An employer can fire an employee just because he doesn't like what color socks he's wearing.

The only prohibitions is firing someone for some protected reason (race, creed, age, etc...).

Unless the socks have the LGBT colours on them. It is California after all

 

[Tuzkiraly]

Wrong. You can only be fired for violating company policy.

If you were "Laid Off" for fashion sense
When there is no dress code defined in the emplpyee handbook and no company policy in regards to dress code.

Would be a lay off. Which is unemployment eligible.

If they had a dress code and repeatedly wore white socks on months when they require black.
Could then be fired for violating company policy after 2 written warnings. And yes
The employer has to give you chances to meet their needs if they dont want to pay unenployment

As for being unlawful. Lay-Offs are legal. But they're not terminations.

 

[cbg]

Wrong. You can only be fired for violating company policy.

If you were "Laid Off" for fashion sense
When there is no dress code defined in the emplpyee handbook and no company policy in regards to dress code.

Would be a lay off. Which is unemployment eligible.

If they had a dress code and repeatedly wore white socks on months when they require black.
Could then be fired for violating company policy after 2 written warnings. And yes
The employer has to give you chances to meet their needs if they dont want to pay unenployment

As for being unlawful. Lay-Offs are legal. But they're not terminations.

Please post a link to the law that says you can only be fired for violating company policy. I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

As for a layoff not being a termination, that's just silly.

(HINT: Termination is not a synonym for fired)

 

[Shadowbunny]

Wrong. You can only be fired for violating company policy.

If you were "Laid Off" for fashion sense
When there is no dress code defined in the emplpyee handbook and no company policy in regards to dress code.

Would be a lay off. Which is unemployment eligible.

If they had a dress code and repeatedly wore white socks on months when they require black.
Could then be fired for violating company policy after 2 written warnings. And yes
The employer has to give you chances to meet their needs if they dont want to pay unenployment

As for being unlawful. Lay-Offs are legal. But they're not terminations.

Tuzkiraly, at first I thought you were joking, but then I saw the thread you started. You are SO far off base. Please refrain from giving employment law advice until you have an understanding of what the law actually says. Thank you.