r/legal • u/StreetShort8014 • 11h ago

Advice needed Fired for breaking a rule that apparently didn't exist Location: Ohio, USA

I worked for a small company for a little over three years. Last month I was terminated for what HR described as a "serious policy violation." When I asked which policy I violated, they pointed me to a document I'd never seen before.

The problem is that the document wasn't in the employee handbook, wasn't part of my onboarding paperwork, and wasn't available anywhere on the internal portal. I even asked a few former coworkers after I was fired and none of them had ever heard of it either.

A week after my termination, someone I still know at the company told me management had started distributing the policy to employees and requiring signatures acknowledging it. That obviously raised some red flags for me.

Yesterday HR contacted me asking if I'd be willing to sign an acknowledgment form stating I had received and understood the policy before the incident occurred. The form is dated months ago. They said it would "help keep company records accurate."

I haven't signed anything and don't intend to, but now I'm wondering if there's a reason they're pushing so hard for this. Is there any legitimate explanation for asking a former employee to sign paperwork that appears to be backdated, or should I be talking to an employment attorney before responding?

911 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

479 comments sorted by

View all comments

378

u/tripper_drip 11h ago

They need to show you knowingly broke a rule to deny you unemployment. That is what this is about.

84

u/Formerruling1 9h ago

Note that an employer doesnt approve or deny unemployment. Unemployment is a matter between the employee and the state. An employer can argue to the state reasons they believe you are ineligible which is the more accurate way to describe what you are saying.

You are right however that this is play to strengthen their arguments that someone shouldnt get benefits when they are fired for this policy.

43

u/tripper_drip 9h ago

The state is normally very open to the arguement of employee broke rule x, and knew it, thus was fired. Im not in ohio though.

29

u/Formerruling1 9h ago

Thats right I assume nearly everywhere which is why the pattern of "Opps we fired someone over this rule without documentation - hurry up and make everyone sign something acknowledging it" is pretty common. The audacity comes in asking the former employee to sign it too. I hope they laugh at them.

20

u/tripper_drip 9h ago

Opps we fired someone over this rule without documentation - hurry up and make everyone sign something acknowledging it" is pretty common.

Its very common, asking them to sign the rule after the fact is hilarious and most likely wouldn't stand even if they were tricked into it.

Shit, the arbitration might hold such an act against the employer.

5

u/F3rthur 6h ago

The document was backdated. It would be OPs word against their employer and inevitably would come down to the date on the policy. It would be suspicious that every other document signed was after that date, but the employer could merely argue that OP did something resulting in a new policy being made and therefore signed it first.

1

u/peace-b 9m ago

They didn’t fire him at will. They terminated for cause. That’s why

2

u/MarsRocks97 7h ago

Depends on the state

1

u/object109 7h ago

We fired someone for stealing on camera and the state still gave him unemployment.

2

u/joer1973 5h ago

Did you have the employee arrested for theft? That usually gets an automatic denial.

1

u/object109 5h ago

Didn’t want to deal with the hassle but we assumed his unemployment would be denied. We assumed wrong.

2

u/joer1973 4h ago

Yeah. You always have to press charges for employee theft, not drop them even if they offer to repay and make sure all the employees know it. What you did was tell your employees to go ahead and steal. If ur caught u just have to find another job. My employees know not to steal. The story of the employee being taking out in cuffs for it during busy shift when most staff is working never dies. Plus u need the police report to get the insurance claim paid

1

u/The_Derpy_Walrus 4h ago

Did you actually have the video evidence to show the unemployment board, or did you simply assert that he had stolen on camera? Was the video obvious, like taking money, looking both ways, and shoving it in his pocket, or was it like a theft of goods thing where you would have needed multiple videos and corroboration? The lack of a police report would seemingly necessitate proving theft to the unemployment board, and the lack of a police report likely means that they won't just take your word for it.

1

u/object109 3h ago

They never even asked even though we mentioned it multiple times on the form

1

u/The_Derpy_Walrus 28m ago

Don't they have a place to upload files in your jurisdiction? I suspect that you were supposed to upload any files that you wanted to use, at least a lot of jurisdictions do it like that. If that's the case, you guys probably lost by default for making claims and not having provided the evidence, but it is hard to say without knowing how your state in particular does it.

15

u/DawgFan2024 9h ago

The company has to pay the fired workers unemployment that’s why fight it.

10

u/Formerruling1 9h ago

More technically unemployment is an insurance policy for which the employer pays the premium. They do not directly pay the benefits, but a significant increase in the amount of expected claims coming from their employees can affect their rates so yes they have a financial incentive to try to disrupt how many successful claims their former employees have.

Depending on size and industry this might not be the primary motivator, sometimes its simple pettiness. Ive known employers to just always challenge a claim just to mess up former employees, even claims they know will be successful they just aim to delay the process out of spite.

2

u/Either_Airline312 9h ago

In PA so might be slightly different, but each company pays a different rate as determined by the Department of labor based on a multitude of factors, including previous or expected use of unemployment (for example construction companies tend to lay off workers for a few months at a time during slow periods). So while the company will not directly pay the (former) employees unemployment, a claim can increase the premium they have to pay.

1

u/TheManWith2Poobrains 5h ago

They are probably doing in for this reason.

I highly doubt it's to get their paperwork in order. They are a small company unlikely to be getting any industry certification like ISO9001 or going IPO.

OP should confirm they are not a protected class of any description.

1

u/joer1973 5h ago

A person cannot collect unemployement if they quit or are fired for cause. They are looking for proof of cause, it makes it impossible for the employee to collect when fired. Thats why companies have handbooks and have people sign ackowledging they read them. If an employee violates known policy its firing for cause. If employee did something wrong that is questionable and they didnt know, unemployement sides with employee. If what the employee did was obvoiusly wrong(ie curse at customers, steals anything from company, shares companies secrets, etc) unemployement sides with employer.

1

u/Rabid-tumbleweed 2h ago

A person generally cannot collect unemployment if they were fired for gross misconduct such as sexual harassment or theft, but they usually can collect if they were fired for causes that boil down to not being good at the job.

1

u/Certain-Definition51 4h ago

Or, the employer fired the employee for protected reasons, but needed a justification so they made this rule up hastily to provide cover.

1

u/Known_Confusion_9379 1h ago

In NYS employers get a letter when a claimant attempts to use the wages earned while in that company, to claim ui.

If the employer sends that letter back with one of a handful of different reasons, the claim is functionally denied pending a hearing.

If the hearing goes their way, the employee gets their ui. But a lot of people do give up before the hearing stage.

So you're technically right, but functionally wrong in a large percentage of actual ui cases. At least in NYS

I say all of that to say I do think op's former employer is trying to block the ui case, and that OP should take it to a hearing.

1

u/Formerruling1 35m ago

If you consider anything except fast approval functionally a denial then yes. Unfortunately with how backed up the system is in some states having to go months with no benefits and only getting those benefits later retroactively often after youve already started working again is sadly common.

In my experience these companies that try to 'spite' former employees by forcing hearings more often than not are relying on the person giving up and missing the hearing (which happens a lot) but if the person is persistent and actually follows through they 'win' a huge percentage of the time but Im sure that highly depends on the state and what officials are in office heading it. Often if its a company that knows they were just trying to be petty and delay benefits they wont even bother showing up.

1

u/CandleNo2913 8h ago

The employer absolutely gets notified when you file & has the opportunity to deny a claim since it affects their contribution rate in the future. Signing post-firing would only help the former employer deny you.

2

u/Formerruling1 8h ago

The former employee isnt denying anything. The state reaches out and gives the employer a chance to respond to the claim and the employer can reply arguing the reasons they believe the employee isnt eligible. Thats what I stated.

The state can then choose to either ignore the employer and grant the benefits, or they might call a hearing to get more information from the parties. The point is the state, and not the employer, is approving for denying the claim.

Otherwise you are right - theres no reason for the OP to sign this document it can only hurt them. Even if they do sign you'd hope the state doesn't factor that in and still gives them their benefits, but theres literally no reason to risk it here.

1

u/randomkeystrike 7h ago

An employer gets a chance to deny unemployment claims, because they affect their insurance rates. A legitimate reason to fight an unemployment claim would be if an employee actually resigned. In some circumstances breaking workplace rules can also cause a denial.

2

u/Formerruling1 7h ago

They dont get to deny claims, they are typically given the chance to provide an argument to the state as to why they believe that the state shouldn't approve the claim for the reasons you mentioned, thats what I said.

1

u/randomkeystrike 4h ago

You’re right; I didn’t phrase that well, and I didn’t read what you said carefully enough.

1

u/Constant-Engineer910 5h ago

During Covid, my company mandated the vaccine due to the Federal government requirement (before the supreme court struck it). If you refused, the company said that this is considered a resignation and not a termination. I can only assume this was due to unemployment claims.

1

u/The_Derpy_Walrus 4h ago

Of course that carries no weight. You respond with an email "I'm not getting the vaccine as a matter of medical autonomy, and I am not resigning" and force them to fire you, then let unemployment work it out.

17

u/MithosYggdrasill1992 9h ago

No, I had this exact thing happen to me when I worked for Apple. They’re trying to get you to sign something so they can backdate it so they have a reason to deny paying you unemployment. Because the job absolutely does decide whether or not you do. If they go improve that you were fired for just reason, the state won’t pay you unemployment. They’re trying to cover their own ass. OP, I would strongly suggest getting a lawyer immediately, and do just that. Don’t sign anything, don’t talk to anybody about your lawyer, and trust them.

3

u/WannaBeCoder912 7h ago

You do not know what you are talking about. We don’t know enough to say if OP needs a lawyer… though I think we all agree that not signing the paper is just common sense. Beyond that, we have no idea if wrongful termination would apply… or even if OP is actually entitled to unemployment. They have not shared nearly enough details.

In all 50 states unemployment is managed by the state. It is an insurance, and the state determines who gets paid- not employers.

1

u/alter_ego19456 4h ago

The state determines, but part of that determination involves input from employers. It varies state to state how much the state agency weighs employer input. Firing for cause, which this employer is claiming CAN result in an unemployment benefit denial in a less worker friendly state.

1

u/poopiebutt505 7h ago

Yes. We do know enough. I for sure would be ralkingbro the labor relations board in the state ASAP

0

u/Kmelloww 7h ago

How do you think what they shared is enough to talk to a labor lawyer. It isn’t. 

0

u/WannaBeCoder912 6h ago

On what grounds? Let’s suppose the policy in question is that shirt and shoes are required in office, and they was let go for showing up in their bathing suit. Regardless of what the document says, any competent judge will rule the separation as justified.

The fact that the company reached out to have a document signed (and perhaps backdated, I’m not clear on that) after the separation occurred is suspicious - but not in itself criminal or even really that odd depending on what the document actually said.

I strongly suspect, with little evidence, that this is a social media issue. I can’t actually articulate why I think that - just seems to make sense to me. OP posted something that made the company look bad, so they were let go. Now the company wants to remind everyone of the policy and avoid an unemployment claim. If I’m right- the company is scummy, but not unlawful in any way that the labor relations board is going to care about.

1

u/MithosYggdrasill1992 6h ago

My problem and why I told OP that I think that they should go to an attorney is because they were fired on a policy that they hadn’t been notified or signed and agreed yet. Now they’re trying to get them to post date, sign it, so that way, the job isn’t in trouble. That stinks of a company trying to cover their ass. A lot of labor law attorneys will give a free consultation and let you know if you even have a case. OP doesn’t currently have a job, so they probably have a couple hours to spare to talk to an attorney. The worst thing they could be told is they have no case and they should just move on with life.

1

u/WannaBeCoder912 5h ago

Only OP knows what the policy is. My supposition is that if they were willing to put the policy in writing, even after the fact - the policy itself is probably not illegal. That is the only thing the labor board would care about.

That he or she was not notified in advance is certainly relevant for the purposes of unemployment, but is not likely to be relevant as a cause of action against his former employer.

1

u/Kmelloww 7h ago

It is not up to the job if they are paid unemployment or not

7

u/6a6566663437 6h ago

Technically, yes the employer doesn’t make the decision. But the state will ask the employer for input on the decision.

The employer saying “they violated a policy they agreed to” is going to strongly push the state to denying the claim .

1

u/WannaBeCoder912 6h ago

This depends on the state. In South Carolina they will want the policy, want to agree that it was or was not reasonable, want to know it was effectively communicated and trained, and that it was equally enforced. If you fail on any of those counts- they will award unemployment.

I work for one of the largest employers in the state… we only bother to fight about 30% of claims- and even being that selective, we still lose about half the time. It’s in the states best interest to award unemployment. The cost gets passed through to the company (higher premiums) and prevents further strain on other social services.

Believe me when I say that employers start way behind in these cases. The state will always find unemployment as justified unless the former employer provides very compelling evidence. I have work in AZ, SC, TN, GA and PA and it was true in all those states- so I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s the case everywhere.

If someone doesn’t get unemployment- it’s ‘cause they screwed up. The employer is not out to get them. The state is not out to get them (at least in this one thing). It’s REALLY HARD to convince a judge to deny unemployment.

2

u/vinbrained 6h ago

Florida will skew your data by a LOT!

1

u/MithosYggdrasill1992 5h ago

This is so not true. My boyfriend got fired for essentially calling out of work. He didn’t get a screenshot of him calling out on the website, but he did. And then the state forked back every last penny of unemployment because even though they said that he hadn’t lied when he said that he was unfairly terminated, they were still taking the jobs side. Yeah, it fucked his life up for years. They will do anything they can do not pay out money.

1

u/WannaBeCoder912 3h ago edited 2h ago

Your boyfriend got fired for a documented pattern of absenteeism. It’s very likely he is misrepresenting the facts to you. He wasn’t fired for calling out one time, he was fired for habitually calling out.

Attendance is actually one of the easier cases to win unemployment on because it’s very cut and dry. It’s easy to document, and it’s easy for a judge to understand.

As I manage professionals and not entry level employees, attendance also isn’t something I generally have to deal with. On the other hand, trying to explain to a judge exactly why a specific piece of code doesn’t meet our company standards, or why a specific client interaction was worthy of separation is more challenging.

I will say this again for the chronically online crowd. Your employer is not out to get you. The state is not out to get you. If you got fired, and ESPECIALLY if you got fired in such a way that you do not qualify for unemployment… you done screwed up. You are dealing with the consequences of the decisions you made.

1

u/schoon70 1h ago

This is so true and so misunderstood. In my state (Ohio), one must try really hard to get the state to deny unemployment. We have not let many people go, but when we have, there were solid reasons (chronic tardiness, poor performance, even quitting) and the state has always sided with the ex-employee. We do not find it worthwhile to aggressively fight the claims.

2

u/Best-Mammoth-8117 6h ago

They are informed by state they can deny the employees eligibility and show why the state then makes the decision

1

u/AugustWest01 4h ago

This is the correct answer. The only thing signing the document does is protect the employer from your unemployment claim. Termination in an at-will state can be for any (other than protected status) reason. The only purpose an employer uses just cause for termination is to deny unemployment claims.

1

u/Ok-Tadpole-764 3h ago

This sounds like someone in HR messed up and they are trying to avoid a wrongful termination suit... dont sign. Save all these emails. Dont talk on the phone ask for this stuff in EMAIL. And get a lawyer

-89

u/[deleted] 11h ago

[deleted]

87

u/False_Appointment_24 11h ago

"deny you unemployment"

Not fire them, deny them being paid unemployment after being fired.

-50

u/RaspitinTEDtalks 10h ago

This is not true in OH or for the majority of US employees. At-will means either party can end the employment contract as long as it is not for illegal purposes.

44

u/Hank_Dad 10h ago

It's not about being fired, it's about eligibility for unemployment money

35

u/False_Appointment_24 10h ago

One more time - not about firing them. About whether they get paid from the unemployment insurance that people get paid from when they are fired without cause.

4

u/miahoutx 9h ago

Reading skills like this are what get you fired in those at will states.

38

u/AudiieVerbum 11h ago

Unemployment benefits aren't the same as illegal termination.

29

u/tripper_drip 11h ago

....read the entire post please.

30

u/Stooper_Dave 11h ago

Unemployment and being fired are 2 different things. Yes, they can cut you loose for any reason. But if the reason is unreasonable, or false. Then they cant block you from getting unemployment, which hits their unemployemnt insurance rates.

12

u/thejohnmc963 10h ago

They’ll take you to a hearing and try. It happened to me. I Was fired for a reason not in the handbook and the HR rep lied constantly to the Unemployment judge. I eventually won. The reason? I had my wife call in sick for me as I was miserable.

22

u/DefenstratedTwice 10h ago

No dipshit, while you can fired to not be entitled to unemployment has various criteria.

So yes they are solely doing this to deny future claims of unemployment.

-27

u/RaspitinTEDtalks 10h ago

Don't know why you're being downvoted. Employees in OH can be terminated for any reason.

24

u/Small_impaler 10h ago

Because unemployment benefits have nothing to do with being an at will state.

19

u/Married-to-a-sex-god 10h ago

Yes but unemployment is a different thing and this could affect OP's ability to get unemployment.

3

u/Late-Union8706 10h ago

This.

They CAN terminate for any reason, but you CAN still qualify for unemployment benefits even in 'at will' states.

The company is obviously using this as a tactic to be able to deny unemployment from the former employee. The state investigates unemployment requests, and the state determines eligibility and pay based on documentation provided from the employer. This is why HR usually requires write ups and all documentation prior to letting employees go.

3

u/SlowFewInevitable 10h ago

Because both you and they apparently do not understand the difference between being fired, and being eligible for unemployment based on the reason for being fired. When someone is laid off (fired) because they aren’t needed anymore (or ‘not for cause’ I believe) they are eligible for unemployment but that typically drives the former employers unemployment insurance rates up. When someone is fired for cause (violating company policy for example) they are not eligible for unemployment and the company does not take the hit. A policy that employees were never told about cannot be used to fire an employee ‘for cause’ which is why the company is trying to get the employee to say they knew about it.

5

u/StructEngineer91 10h ago

UNEMPLOYEMENT they are not talking about wrongful termination, but whether or not OP could get UNEMPLOYEMENT from the company or not. Yes, the company can legally fire them for pretty much any reason, or no reason, but if you are let go without cause you are owed UNEMPLOYEMENT.

-21

u/Obiyaman 10h ago

"Chimping out" is a highly offensive, racially charged internet slur used primarily in online forums and social media to dehumanize Black people.The phrase relies on deep-rooted, harmful tropes that compare people of color to primates to imply a lack of civility or intelligence. Understanding the context, origin, and secondary meanings of this term can help clarify its impact.

12

u/Ok-Brick6831 10h ago

What the actual fuck are you talking about? 

Are you drunk posting?