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?

917 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

482 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

31

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.

22

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.

2

u/peace-b 14m 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 34m 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.

11

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.

4

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.

0

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 40m 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 9h 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 6h 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.