Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    In some states (e.g. Massachusetts) there is *no* law that says an
    employer has to give or have a "good reason" for terminating an
    employee. Consequently, a terminated employee has no grounds for suing
    for wrongful termination.
    
    I recommend you contact a labor attorney in your area and get some
    clarification around this.

    There is usually provision to bring suit for "Wrongful Discharge" when
    you are released in a manner contrary to your real or imputed
    Employment Contract. However, discharge during a "Probationary Period",
    where that period is part of a standard, published employment policy,
    is usually NOT subject to a wrongful discharge suit. The details DO
    vary from state to state.
    
    Regardless of the law, and especially if the discharge was marginally
    legal and politically motivated, you would face considerable up front,
    out of pocket legal expenses in order to bring suit. Employers often
    count on the lengthy period of time and the considerable personal
    expense to discourage such suits.
    
    You also have a MUCH better chance of a settlement with a public
    company than you would with a privately held one.
    

    People who won't give you a reason in writing may be worried about
    legal action, but people who won't give you a reason verbally usually
    have one of three reasons:
    
    o	They are ignorantly carrying out someone else's decision
    o	They are ashamed of what they are doing
    o	They just don't want to open up the topic because the
    	decision is final.   I think this is the case in .0.
    
    Imagine that you'd asked "Why am I being laid off" and were told
    "Because you did X".  It's clear that many people would interpret
    this as an opportunity to re-open negotiations:
    
    o	"I didn't do X"
    o	"But I did X because.."
    o	"X isn't so bad"
    o	"I can change"
    
    Most people don't like hurting others, and find firings and lay-offs
    uncomfortable things to do to people.  Given the discomfort, they
    certainly don't want to re-open the debate, and mostly don't have
    the authority to change the decision in any case.
    
    I agree it's no fun not to know why--but I understand why they
    might not tell you.
    
    		-John Bishop

    Sounds pretty dirty and underhanded to me.
    
    I'd call a lawyer!  Many times there are ways to get around the laws and
    make others accountable for their actions.
    
    If this is still bothering you, what do you have to lose. 
    Consultations are usually free.
                                   
    

Of course they won't admit it.  My advice is to try to put it behind you and
know better for the next time.

			Steve

    re: basenoter
    
         I, too, was terminated once within (at the end of) a 90-day
    probationary period (the U.S. Postal Service--I was a letter carrier.)
    At the end, I filed a mental and sex discrimination suit against
    them (mental, because my male boss had told me that I had an
    analytical mind and belonged elsewhere :-} and sex because his
    boss, my "real" boss, was a woman who had been attracted to me
    although within my first two days at the station I was invited to
    the beach by a woman--who turned out to be her sister AND who lived
    with her.  I went to the beach, and it was all downhill from there.)
    It took a year to get to a hearing (EEOC--remember Anita Hill?  ;-)  )
    They tossed out the mental part saying that the law was intended to
    represent the mentally deficient not the mentally proficient but
    they allowed me to present a case of "reverse"-sex discrimination
    (as it was called at the time.)
         The hearing judge was a woman, who before the proceedings told
    me that I'd have an exceptionally difficult time proving my case.
    She suggested I settle with their last minute offer (which was to
    expunge my records in exchange for a promise to never go work for
    them again.  Incidentally, I had worked for the U.S. Postal Service
    ten years earlier for a year and a half until I was forced to enter
    military service, and had had no problems.)  I took the settlement
    (but boy, were they sweating it out!  I could see four of my bosses
    in another room chain-smoking cigarettes, pacing back and forth...
    it was almost worth it just to see that!  ;-) )  I had the backing
    of most of my co-workers, by the way, and the union steward (though
    he was officially unable to help because the union was only available
    after the 90-day period.)
         No, they don't have to give a reason.  That's the purpose of the
    90-day thing.  They may not like your breath, your car, your clothes,
    your friends, your lifestyle, your hands, anything...and can lay
    you off.  They may cite incompatibility or personality clashes.  
    I agree that they are "chicken shit" for not telling you.  That's
    unfortunate to you, but is not necessarily something you can do
    anything about.  Filing suit may open that information up, but is
    it worth it?  It's not likely to be accurate information anyway, and
    would likely be information which is conjured up to make their own
    case and which you would not be able to refute.
        Unless you feel like pursuing it for the hell of it, I'd be more
    inclined to chalk it up to a learning situation, to forgive myself
    (in other words, quit beating myself up for some supposed wrong-doing--
    it was likely some whim of theirs) and to go forward a little wiser
    than before; more cautious, less innocent, more determined to do well
    and to keep a track record (written, even.)
    
    Frederick
    

Re: .9

I don't know what you "ought" to have done differently.  My thought was that
you should be less trusting in the future, which is unfortunate, as there's
too little trust in the world.  Unfortunately, there are far too many people
who are willing to violate your trust.

If I had been in your shoes, I probably would not have imagined the need for
any sort of written assurance regarding the stability of my job.  But I've
read many, many stories like yours.

The only general comment I could make is that nobody should consider their
job at all secure until they've been at it for at least six months.  (And
nowadays, not even then...)

				Steve

    Big league players, such as departing DEC VP's fortunate enough to
    have landed real jobs rather than go the "persue personal interests"
    route, request and receive "pay or play" contracts as part of their 
    employment deals.  Let's face it, most of us are not considered 
    valuable enough to merit such perquisites, and are forced to accept
    the fact that we are terminable at whim.
    
    Shawn

    I think you really *should* put it behind you and get on with things.
    You cannot imagine what a nightmare the legal system can be.
    
    I have a close friend who was a personnel manager for a privately held
    company here. She eventually had to leave her job because of Cumulative
    Trauma Syndrom. Her former employer then insisted that she quit, and
    has been in court with her for over a year. She has been unable to
    collect either unemployment or workers compensation and is today on the
    verge of filing personal bancruptcy because of medical and legal
    expenses. It *appears* as though she will win in court "eventually" on
    the workers compensation issue, and will then have to go back an
    re-open the unemployment compensation case (which she lost in a state
    administrative hearing and connot afford to appeal yet).
    
    Honestly, it is beyond belief. You have every right to feel cheated and
    misused and hurt. But the chances of making it better through the legal
    system is pretty slim.
    

    You can talk to the Labor Board for your situation. Maybe they will e
    able to help. You are a contractor so you wont having problems
    finding an assignment, and who knows it might be a good one!

re: .3

>    I cannot believe that employers protect themselves with 90 day
>    probationary periods, etc.  What are they for?

While it certainly appears that the probationary period conditions were
taken advantage of in your particular circumstances, in general they serve
a very important function, and there's every reason to allow employers
to protect themselves with them.

Interviews, proficiency testing, reference checking - none of the resources
available to an employer prior to hiring someone can guarantee that the
individual in question will be "right" for the job. If the person is brought
on board as an employee and doesn't work out, for whatever reasons, the
employer deserves the protection afforded by a probationary period policy.
Certainly if there's a problem which is addressable, a decent employer is
likely to attempt to deal with it. But if it's likely not an addressable
issue, IMO the employer deserves the right to minimize their losses by
probationary dismissal.

Again, not that that was your situation. But you asked what they are for,
and this is a large part of it.

re: .10

>    She suggested I settle with their last minute offer (which was to
>    expunge my records in exchange for a promise to never go work for
>    them again.  . . . . .             I took the settlement

I'm sorry - I must be failing to understand something here. How was this
to your advantage other than avoiding the litigation you'd initiated?

-Jack

    re: .17
    
         It wasn't much of an offer, was it?   But at the time it
    seemed as though I would be losing the case, in which case I'd
    have nothing at all besides a year of aggravation and a "bad
    work record with the U.S. Postal Service."  AND, those who were
    the "culprits," (that is, other than myself   ;-}  ) would run
    off feeling very smug.  So, I opted for their big, generous offer.
    They had to "give" something, which means that they weren't 
    exonerated.  They didn't win.  And for me, it meant that no one
    will ever have any records at all concerning the trumped up charges
    that they had been trying to stick to me.
        You're right, it's not like a court win.  But the win came in 
    the experience for me.
    
    
    Frederick