Firing Inconsistency

Watson

While on vacation, my superiors took it upon themselves to fire an employee. They completed the State Separation Notice (Tennessee) and gave it to the employee stating "lack of work". They told her verbally that the real reason was that no one liked her. She filed for unemployment and they then completed the response form, stating on that form that they had reason to believe that she or her boyfriend had stolen company property. She was awarded unemployment benefits and has since obtained similar employment. Does she have a legal basis for suing us based upon the inconsistencies in the separation notice given to her and the information given to the state?

Gillian

I don't think that the inconsistency is the problem. There may be grounds for a defamation lawsuit though. Your superiors need some education.

Gar

Frankly, there's nothing stopping the former employee from filing a defamation suit, but for her to prevail I believe she has to show she suffered some sort of loss. It seems to me the folks who fired her are bushleaguers and this shows what can happen when HR is not in the loop.

Hatchetman

I'd be interesting in knowing why the company reported that she was fired for stealing? Was that true? If it was, perhaps the company was trying to let her get another job by not putting down the "stealing" as the reason. But then, of course, if it had an inquiry from a prospective employer and responded that she was "laid off due to no work" [but the true reason was that she stole], the company would be in hot water for that if something occurred with the new employer.

That's why it is always better just to bite the bullet and give the same information -- preferrably the truth -- to the terminated employee and prospective employers (with an authorization to release information).

Theresa Gegen TX

The US Supreme Court case of Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing applies here. In that case, Reeves was fired because he allegedly misrecorded time cards. The jury found that the reason was not true and that Reeves was fired because of his age.

The employer appealed the decision and the court of appeals said that merely proving that the reason for termination was not true was not enough -- Reeves also had to prove that age was the true reason for his termination.

The US Supreme Court reversed, and said that the jury could infere that age was the true reason for the termination, because the reason given by the employer was false.

Numerous cases since Reeves have stated that when an employer gives inconsistant reasons for firing an employee, (even if none of the reasons were unlawful discrimination), a jury can infere that the true reason for the firing was unlawful discrimination.

So if this employee were to sue for age, race or sex discrimination, she would get her case before a jury. Now what do you think the jury would think about the managers giving all these different reasons? (Maybe that the managers are trying to cover up the true reason, which was wrongful?)

Your managers must be trained to give consistant, true reasons for terminating an employee. The company is lucky that this employee has found other work. She probably won't make a claim and even if she does, she probably doesn't have much in damages. But next time the company may not get so lucky!

Good Luck!

Theresa Gegen
Attorney Editor -- Texas

Andrews & Kurth, LLP
Dallas, TX