Laid off/work-related legal question (2013, applying, secretaries, unemployed)
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.
I completely disagree with these remarks. The employer signed off on the chicken coop and attested that the employment was stable..
The employer did not "sign off" on the co-op. The employer answered a question about employment stability and none of us, including the OP, has any idea how the employer answered that question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpertAnalysis
Layoffs are a result of poor company management
sigh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpertAnalysis
IRREGARDLESS
Even though you use all caps, it doesn't make it a proper word.
As an experienced lawyer who knows virtually nothing about labor law and whose observations should not be misconstrued as legal advice, I can certainly see the OP's point that actively lying about his job stability at a time when the employer knew the job wasn't stable is "legally troubling." Those who are lecturing the OP seem to be missing the point - we're talking about (potentially) a knowing misrepresentation by the employer. On the other hand, it's really difficult to see why an employer would do this, if it knew the employee was going to be laid off in a matter of weeks anyway. Perhaps they were afraid of tipping off the entire workforce, although that seems like a remote possibility in this context. If the OP had absolutely ironclad evidence this occurred, I would at least see if the union would pursue some sort of grievance. Other than that, it strikes me as an exceedingly difficult case to prove liability and damages; the OP would seemingly have to prove the lender would have said 'No' if the loan form had been answered differently. Based on my experience, my guess would be that the form was shuffled to some gerbil in the personnel department who had no more knowledge of the impending layoffs than the OP did. The gerbil probably thought "We always check the 'Yes' box to help the employee buy a home" and that set the chain of events in motion.
Most of us are disputing the entire premise, namely that any employer would fill out a form guaranteeing future employment. NO company is going to do that. I agree with the poster who said they probably just sent it to HR who said "so and so is an employee in good standing".
Second, there is no proof boss knew who was being laid off, it comes from above that person. Third, she is under absolutely no obligation to "warn" ONE employee out of many and in fact THAT sounds legally dubious, when we have no idea what those people were buying at the moment. I highly doubt OP is the only person for whom a layoff came at an inopportune time.
Even supposing boss (Or HR, who probably is who got the form) What was she/he supposed to do say "Listen, Shoshana, I can't let anyone else know this because corporate will kill me, but there are going to be massive layoffs soon, so hold off on that condo but keep it quiet"? Boss would be lucky if all she got was fired. If I'm the guy who signed a car lease the morning before I got laid off, and I found out boss told OP, and only OP, I'd sue.
I have been in companies and/or industries who had to have layoffs and closings but never did the employees have NO clue that the business and/or industry was slow and having trouble. Why would anyone buy a home under those circumstances? OP was fairly new as well, second lowest in seniority, which is why she was one of the layoffs. They gave them 2 months notice...I don't think people realize that from the post, but OP found out about the impending layoff after signing the contract, she is for now still employed for 2 months. I second the posters who suggest she spend this 2 months securing a new job.
As an experienced lawyer who knows virtually nothing about labor law and whose observations should not be misconstrued as legal advice, I can certainly see the OP's point that actively lying about his job stability at a time when the employer knew the job wasn't stable is "legally troubling." Those who are lecturing the OP seem to be missing the point - we're talking about (potentially) a knowing misrepresentation by the employer. On the other hand, it's really difficult to see why an employer would do this, if it knew the employee was going to be laid off in a matter of weeks anyway. Perhaps they were afraid of tipping off the entire workforce, although that seems like a remote possibility in this context. If the OP had absolutely ironclad evidence this occurred, I would at least see if the union would pursue some sort of grievance. Other than that, it strikes me as an exceedingly difficult case to prove liability and damages; the OP would seemingly have to prove the lender would have said 'No' if the loan form had been answered differently. Based on my experience, my guess would be that the form was shuffled to some gerbil in the personnel department who had no more knowledge of the impending layoffs than the OP did. The gerbil probably thought "We always check the 'Yes' box to help the employee buy a home" and that set the chain of events in motion.
Yes I know they were concerned about tipping off the entire workforce. (We are a close staff, not just in my office but in the company in general - people know each other).
And for sure my lender would not have given me a mortgage if the form was filled out differently, that the employment was not stable. (which clearly it wasn't - I got laid off 1 month later!)
You may be right that the form may have been shuffled to someone in personnel, but that person should have investigated whether the employment was stable before answering "Yes."
For sure my manager (she admitted it), and certainly people in HR knew about the layoff 2 months ago. The forms were filled out about 5 weeks ago. They KNEW.
I do believe it's misrepresentation.
As it happens I do have an emergency fund. I am lucky.
But what about someone who doesn't?
What if they do this and someone has to foreclose on their apartment/house?
Are they not responsible in some way for misrepresenting?
You have no idea what they put on the form. Until you know exactly what they said, you have no idea if they misrepresented anything.
Agreed. At an absolute minimum, you need to find out exactly what they said before even thinking about whether you have a legal claim. Otherwise you are wildly speculating.
Location: In a city within a state where politicians come to get their PHDs in Corruption
2,907 posts, read 2,067,166 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoshanarose
Yes I know they were concerned about tipping off the entire workforce. (We are a close staff, not just in my office but in the company in general - people know each other).
And for sure my lender would not have given me a mortgage if the form was filled out differently, that theemployment was not stable. (which clearly it wasn't - I got laid off 1 month later!)
You may be right that the form may have been shuffled to someone in personnel, but that person should have investigated whether the employment was stable before answering "Yes."
For sure my manager (she admitted it), and certainly people in HR knew about the layoff 2 months ago. The forms were filled out about 5 weeks ago. They KNEW.
I do believe it's misrepresentation.
As it happens I do have an emergency fund. I am lucky.
But what about someone who doesn't?
What if they do this and someone has to foreclose on their apartment/house?
Are they not responsible in some way for misrepresenting?
Ok, I have filled out few of these myself for my employees, and the form never, ever asks whether or not someone's employment is "stable". The only thing that I verify are a.) dates of employment b.) position c.) current salary/hourly wage. That's it.
Ok, I have filled out few of these myself for my employees, and the form never, ever asks whether or not someone's employment is "stable". The only thing that I verify are a.) dates of employment b.) position c.) current salary/hourly wage. That's it.
Have you seen the filled out form?
The form asked : "Prospects for future employment:"
Ok, I have filled out few of these myself for my employees, and the form never, ever asks whether or not someone's employment is "stable". The only thing that I verify are a.) dates of employment b.) position c.) current salary/hourly wage. That's it.
Have you seen the filled out form?
I have seen some asking about continued employment. Normally we respond with "Restricted Information" which is a basic brush off to the question. Normally, so long as we don't respond in the negative, blanks or refusals are not held again the applicant. Which brings up your second point; unless the OP has seen the form with a positive answer, the OP has absolutely no idea what was actually on the form and is just wildly getting all emotional and crazy over something they know jack squat is the actual factual truth!
So, I hope the OP will actually answer your question!
Location: In a city within a state where politicians come to get their PHDs in Corruption
2,907 posts, read 2,067,166 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoshanarose
The form asked : "Prospects for future employment:"
Have you seen the filled out form?
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.
