Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's also risky to assume the case would even reach a court of law. Makes good TV but real life is different.
I wasn't assuming it would go to court. Most disagreements don't make it that far. I doubt this one would either.
My point is I would not sign my name with ellipses and assume that it would mean I would not be bound to the terms of the document I signed. It's possible that a person could sign and use ellipses and still be required to adhere to the document's terms. I don't think it would be an automatic out.
All you people talking about getting a lawyer, imagine this. You're a manager minding your own business and an employee comes into your office to tell you that he and the team doesn't like who you're dating and that you better stop or...
So said employee probably made some minor threats but didn't have any evidence of the girlfriend getting special treatment. A serious line was crossed. Do you not fire the employee?
This is why any company with any wisdom at all wouldn't let a manager hire their girlfriend as a subordinate. He can't help but give the girlfriend disparate treatment, destroy worker morale and what do you think is going to happen if the relationship goes sour? That's right a quid pro quo sexual harassment case for the company.
YEs they do. I work in employment litigation for a very large company and we send letters out regularly stating that we will not contest the claim.
Those letters just tells unemployment you are not going to fight the determination, but it has no bearing on the determination. If you read the Employers Guide, it tells you that it is the State that will make the final determination based on all available evidence. When you get the LO-400, you are welcome to eat the change to your tax rate if you like by not contesting, but if the claimant provided a disqualification event such as a quit, NY doesn't need you to even respond as a quit without just cause is an automatic statutory denial.
Now if the person was terminated by the company and you want to be nice, you can not contest the claim. But, if that claimant goes and tells unemployment they were fired and the story they tell amounts to misconduct, they are denied. The denial is based on the best available evidence and if that best available evidence came out of the mouth of the claimant, they got themselves denied even if the employer wasn't contesting.
There was a post from a person who was fired for getting angry at a customer, The employer wrote to the claimant that they would not contest their unemployment. They claimant was denied and appealed. At the appeal hearing, the employer was a no show. The employer never responded to the initial interview, never responded to the written fact finder, never appeared at the appeals hearing, never submitted one piece of information; the only document was that letter saying they would not contest the unemployment. However, the claimant was denied benefits despite the letter from the employer saying they wouldn't contest. Reason for the denial was the "admission" of misconduct by the claimant. The BOR upheld the denial of benefits citing the self admission evidence that supported a disqualification and denied a Board review of the employers "not contesting letter" because it is the State of New York, that makes the determination, not the employer.
Now a good and honest employer would also instruct the employee to check the "Lay-Off" box and list laid off on the Section 195 Notice of Separation for the employee, and tell that employee to keep their trap shut about the real reason. That is the only way to ensure an employee will get benefits if they apply, otherwise, the employer knows the claimant stands a good chance of saying the wrong thing and get denied. It's so much easier for HR to say what the fired employee wants to hear so they leave with a smile on their face not knowing that employer is calling them a fool behind their back.
Hey OP, don't forget they owe you COBRA.
Also, sometimes resigning without another job looks worse than being fired. Tomorrow get that recommendation in hand and let them fire you because it's going to happen anyway. $1900 a month is better than nothing. Remember that resigning may be the apparently noble thing to do but you could be limiting your rights in more ways than any of us know.
Before they turn off your access to email get all of your performance reviews and forward them to your home email address. If they are on paper don't leave work without them.
When they do fire you they may give the reason as disloyalty. Discuss with them what would be said by personnel to a new employer. If they just say disloyalty, you could say that you were caught looking for another job. You may have some leverage with them considering the number of years that you have there along with good performance reviews.
I also know how angry you are so grow a thicker skin. Working in New York sucks.
All you people talking about getting a lawyer, imagine this. You're a manager minding your own business and an employee comes into your office to tell you that he and the team doesn't like who you're dating and that you better stop or...
So said employee probably made some minor threats but didn't have any evidence of the girlfriend getting special treatment. A serious line was crossed. Do you not fire the employee?
The OP is unfortunately naive about how management backs management. Being the defacto supervisor of the group doesn't make him the supervisor.
The issue at hand is that the company asked him to Resign, rather than fire him. It's already decided that he's out the door at that company. The open discussion is whether he should resign or allow then to fire him.
The attorney was suggested merely to give advice on whether it's best to resign or be fired. And if resigned, if a severance package could be negotiated for the acti of resigning instead of getting fired.
A severance package? Take the path of least resistance. Be fired, get unemployment and learn a lesson.
YEs they do. I work in employment litigation for a very large company and we send letters out regularly stating that we will not contest the claim.
I have not been fired or chosen to leave or resign where i work at
But in both cases doesnt it look bad and disqualified you from unemployment benefits?
Get fired - take the severance and get on unemployment. I did it 4 years ago and it was a smart move overall as I moved back to CA switched industries and eventually made a lot more money. NYC can be a toxic place to work.
NEVER QUIT !!!!!!!!!!! They will twist it around to try to beat you out of UEI. When I have been in your position, I sat it out until they let me go , then I had that in my favor. If you quit, it can kill any chance you have of getting your unemployment.
Do not let them run this game on you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
