Termination for Failure to Cooperate.

[umkemesic]

IL

An employee was terminated for Failure to Cooperate by providing false and misleading statements. The ordinance in question is copied from a local city. The ordinance seems only to apply to REFUSING to cooperate. It does not define cooperation to mean false and misleading statements.

Researching the issue further the city does not punish personnel for lying under the cooperation ordinance. Instead they are punished under false statements in an inquiry, a separate personal rule.

Given the facts above could a colorable argument be made that a termination for providing false or misleading statements goes beyond the scope of the statute?

Here is the statute:

Cooperation.

It shall be unlawful for any person subject to this Section to refuse to cooperate as required by this Section. The penalty for such violation shall be governed by*Section xxx.

 

[cbg]

Do you have a legal question?

 

[commentator]

So you are asking or telling us that this person was fired illegally, because you can't fire someone for "failure to cooperate."? No actually, in an at-will state they can fire you for anything including being "too cooperative" or wearing the wrong color of socks to work. Okay, you worked for the local city? If not why would something in their handbook or policies be applicable? And remember, companies do not even have to follow their own handbooks and guidelines if they don't want to.

 

[umkemesic]

So you are asking or telling us that this person was fired illegally, because you can't fire someone for "failure to cooperate."? No actually, in an at-will state they can fire you for anything including being "too cooperative" or wearing the wrong color of socks to work. Okay, you worked for the local city? If not why would something in their handbook or policies be applicable? And remember, companies do not even have to follow their own handbooks and guidelines if they don't want to.

The individual is a career service employee. The County ordinance, modeled after the City's, punishes "refusing to cooperate" as indicated in that section. The section does not state anything about false or misleading statements. The IG has also used the section to punish those who talk about the investigation. i.e. "failed to cooperate by discussing the confidential nature of the investigation".

The City has a separate personnel rule for those who lie or omit facts during a specific inquiry. The cooperation ordinance is never used to punish City employees with false statements, only if they refuse to cooperate (by not showing up to the investigation).

Do you think this argument too semantic?

 

[ShyCat]

The individual is a career service employee. The County ordinance, modeled after the City's, punishes "refusing to cooperate" as indicated in that section. The section does not state anything about false or misleading statements. The IG has also used the section to punish those who talk about the investigation. i.e. "failed to cooperate by discussing the confidential nature of the investigation".

The City has a separate personnel rule for those who lie or omit facts during a specific inquiry. The cooperation ordinance is never used to punish City employees with false statements, only if they refuse to cooperate (by not showing up to the investigation).

Do you think this argument too semantic?

Seriously, you're trying to equate lying with cooperation? There's no way to spin "lie or omit facts" as any form of cooperation with an investigation.

 

[commentator]

No, when you are fired, you don't get an argument, semantic or not. An employer can fire an employee. For whatever reason. Even a city can fire a city employee. You've got nowhere you're going to get to make this argument except perhaps to the unemployment system.

 

[Just Blue]

Do me a favor, keep your snark to the inner circle of "employment Lawyers" that have not read loudermill or understand the concept of career service employment.

What you said.was completely wrong in re: public sector non-probationary employment.

Do me a favor and TAKE your snark to an attorney and pay for advice.

 

[Just Blue]

Px Hx Folks!!

 

[umkemesic]

Public sector employees, non probationary career service are not at - will. They have a property interest and continued expectation of employment.

That wasn't even the issue here. And if that's the standard response to any employment question on this forum, including your response to pay for advise.

 

[Just Blue]

There is no snark telling a poster they are wrong.

Public sector employees, non probationary career service are not at - will. They have a property interest and continued expectation of employment.

That wasn't even the issue here. And if that's the standard response to any employment question on this forum, including your flippant response to pay for advise, the community at large is better served on AVVO.

As you seem to "know more" that the volunteers of the forum...Why are you here? Every thread you start, you behave this way. As another member stated in another thread of yours...You are a nutbag.

 

[Shadowbunny]

Px Hx Folks!!

His Hx is quite interesting: https://forum.freeadvice.com/civil-litigation-46/42-1983-a-564207.html

 

[Just Blue]

His Hx is quite interesting: https://forum.freeadvice.com/civil-litigation-46/42-1983-a-564207.html

Yes. Interesting. Sad. Insane.

Good news is the Pats won! Again!!

 

[Proserpina]

Yes. Interesting. Sad. Insane.

Good news is the Pats won! Again!!

And my team won, too. We have the best back-up QB in the history of the NFL.

 

[Just Blue]

And my team won, too. We have the best back-up QB in the history of the NFL.

NE has the best QB in the Hx of the NFL!! Yeah for both of us!!

 

[PendergastAXL]

IL

An employee was terminated for Failure to Cooperate by providing false and misleading statements. The ordinance in question is copied from a local city. The ordinance seems only to apply to REFUSING to cooperate. It does not define cooperation to mean false and misleading statements.

Researching the issue further the city does not punish personnel for lying under the cooperation ordinance. Instead they are punished under false statements in an inquiry, a separate personal rule.

Given the facts above could a colorable argument be made that a termination for providing false or misleading statements goes beyond the scope of the statute?

Here is the statute:

Cooperation.

It shall be unlawful for any person subject to this Section to refuse to cooperate as required by this Section. The penalty for such violation shall be governed by*Section xxx.

I think that Refusing To Cooperate could have misleading statements filed under it. After all, the person mislead you BY refusing to cooperate. It all works down to semantics. If you were the employee terminated, like I said, it's all about the wording and how strict the city is adhering to the wording. As a wrongfully terminated employee, you can spin it the other way. Have you asked a City official these questions? Might not hurt. They are usually friendly and very helpful people.

Best of luck to you.