so, I just got fired

[azezzo]

ok lookin for help with lowering my stress level, I was working a non nuclear related job, I was building scaffold for a company up in Prudhoe bay alaska the last 4 months at the Oliktok man camp, middle of no where on the alaskan pipeline, working 7 days a week 12 n 1/2 hours a day 6 weeks at a crack b4 getting time off, oh and working nights in below zero temps, minus 30 b4 i left. Anyways, so heres what happened, I was sleeping on my time in my bedroom, 1/2 hour b4 my alarm was to go  off i was woken by the sound of a housekeepers vaccum, 2nd time in 2 days, so lying in my bed i said/yelled son of a bitch, got up opened my door to see her vaccuming away, i asked her , "do you need to be doing that right here, right now?" with a dirty look she said, "yes", I shut the door and went back to bed. I later got up went to work and i was taken to the office, I'm waitin at the superintendants office door and can see my name on the board with "fired" written next to it, he asked me what happened, i tell him, he doesnt believe me, he says i need to put it in writing, i did, he still doesnt believe me and says she said i f-bombed her to death and that she had never been treated so badly her time working there, and then im told i'm not working that night and am on the next plane out of there.

so, will this keep me from gettin into my next nuclear plant, i have worked an outage within the last year and have a job lined up, but they ask about gettin fired on the "PHQ"

also will this keep me from getting a "Q" clearance?, I'm in the middle of that

[Mike_Koehler]

I have seen this go both ways....... On a Q clearance there is part of the investigation that deals with the way you handle stress. That could be an issue, but I doubt it. The only advice I can offer is to be completely honest in all your clearance quests and perform whatever corrective actions the investigators want you to do quickly. The fastest way to completely hose up your chances to ever get a clearance is to lie and have it discovered.

Good luck in all of your job hunting endeavors....

Mike

[azezzo]

well small personal victory today, I called the H.R. dept of the company, and was told I was not fired, but was suspended, and was asked, "didnt i sign the termination paperwork" which I wasnt given, So they said I was eligible for rehire, and will change the paperwork to personal resignation since i had told them prior my last day was in a week anyways. Oh, and that they would talk to the superintendant about the way he handled things

[Content1]

If you did not f-bomb her and she accused you of something you did not do I would have sued her for slander.   That serves two purposes, one to not let someone walk over you like that and to show for clearance purposes the facts are in dispute, and having a good record otherwise should not hurt you in future endeavors.

[Fermi2]

If you did not f-bomb her and she accused you of something you did not do I would have sued her for slander.   That serves two purposes, one to not let someone walk over you like that and to show for clearance purposes the facts are in dispute, and having a good record otherwise should not hurt you in future endeavors.

Wow, would you be my lawyer?

[Content1]

Wow, would you be my lawyer?

I am not an attorney, just took enough law school to know you do not let someone slander you professionally.  It always better to fight for yourself when you are innocent, unless she was related to the company that fired you.  I probably would have sued those who fired you too, for believing her without any proof like witnesses who heard it etc.  for the costs to get home.   It is your word against hers, and the burden is always on the accuser.  You have a year statute of limitations, get an attorney and go for it.   Where is your sense of justice, remember, the 9th commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness!"   If you truly did not do what she accused you of, you should fight.   If you did, truth is a complete defense to slander.   So which is it?

[Incline]

So if I called you a whiney a$$@*!e based on your previous posts over the years, would that be slander, truth or simply an opinion?

[illegalsmile]

I am not an attorney, just took enough law school to know you do not let someone slander you professionally.  It always better to fight for yourself when you are innocent, unless she was related to the company that fired you.  I probably would have sued those who fired you too, for believing her without any proof like witnesses who heard it etc.  for the costs to get home.   It is your word against hers, and the burden is always on the accuser.  You have a year statute of limitations, get an attorney and go for it.   Where is your sense of justice, remember, the 9th commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness!"   If you truly did not do what she accused you of, you should fight.   If you did, truth is a complete defense to slander.   So which is it?

I'm betting you took zero "law school."  You may be able to recover transportation home from the employer, but based on the later post, I'm betting that has already been paid. If the employee doesn't have a contract, he/she is employed "at the pleasure (or discretion) of the employer" and can be released for any reason or no reason at all. The only way 'slander' would be an issue is if the employer told someone (such as another potential employer) that the employee was terminated for using abusive language toward the housekeeper. In that case, the burden of proof would be on the accuser which is, the plaintive, i.e. the terminated employee. If the employer had used this type of language toward the housekeeper, it would open the issue of sexual harassment. A quick look at case laws involving sexual harassment will show you that the courts tend to take the position that "if she says 'sexual harassment, you'd better be able to prove it either didn't happen or wasn't harassment."
My bet is, the employer will, at worst, simply say "He worked for us. He no longer works for us. He will not work for us again."

[Content1]

I'm betting you took zero "law school."  You may be able to recover transportation home from the employer, but based on the later post, I'm betting that has already been paid. If the employee doesn't have a contract, he/she is employed "at the pleasure (or discretion) of the employer" and can be released for any reason or no reason at all. The only way 'slander' would be an issue is if the employer told someone (such as another potential employer) that the employee was terminated for using abusive language toward the housekeeper. In that case, the burden of proof would be on the accuser which is, the plaintive, i.e. the terminated employee. If the employer had used this type of language toward the housekeeper, it would open the issue of sexual harassment. A quick look at case laws involving sexual harassment will show you that the courts tend to take the position that "if she says 'sexual harassment, you'd better be able to prove it either didn't happen or wasn't harassment."
My bet is, the employer will, at worst, simply say "He worked for us. He no longer works for us. He will not work for us again."

So let's go through life letter maids slander our good name for fear of a sexual harassment suit, and yes, I bet the employer will just say "He worked here."  It was his security clearance I was talking about is why he needs to fight this, or at least give his side of the story in his defense.

[Sun Dog]

So let's go through life letter maids slander our good name for fear of a sexual harassment suit, and yes, I bet the employer will just say "He worked here."  It was his security clearance I was talking about is why he needs to fight this, or at least give his side of the story in his defense.

You are in a hole, it is getting deeper, stop digging.

[Already Gone]

When terminating an employee, the only thing necessary to say to him is, "we won't be needing you to work here anymore."  Saying anything beyond that is just an invitation to a lawsuit.
Goofy as it may seem, Content1 is too close to correct.
If Mel fires Vera the waitress for eating all the bacon off the customers' plates and tells her why he's firing her, she may sue him for defaming her.  It's a little twisted, but it happens all the time.  Mel tells Vera why he's firing her.  Mel must reasonably expect that 1) Vera will seek new employment, 2) Vera will be asked why she was fired from Mel's Diner, 3) Vera will answer truthfully.
In this scenario, Mel has completed two of the acts necessary to prove a case for defamation.  He has made a statement that is harmful to her reputation, and he has published that statement.  (By telling her something that he should expect her to repeat, he has made the statement public.  That is the twisted part, but it is true.)  If Vera can show that Mel either knew the damaging statement was false OR that he could not have known with absolute certainty that it was true, then he has defamed her.  So, if it turns out that Vera wasn't eating the bacon but throwing it away, Mel is  going to have to pay up.

There are times when you just have to fire somebody, but you have to avoid it and you have to be very careful what you say when you are doing it.  As it has been pointed out here, an employer may terminate any employee with or without a reason.  What an employer may NOT do is damage the reputation of the employee in the process.  You can fire him from this job, but you don't have the right to keep him from getting his next one.

[Fermi2]

I believe to defame it has to cause harm to his public reputation, which so far as I can see this didn't do.

Also I've never seen a His word vs My word defamation case go very far!

[LT Dan]

When terminating an employee, the only thing necessary to say to him is, "we won't be needing you to work here anymore."  Saying anything beyond that is just an invitation to a lawsuit.
Goofy as it may seem, Content1 is too close to correct.
If Mel fires Vera the waitress for eating all the bacon off the customers' plates and tells her why he's firing her, she may sue him for defaming her.  It's a little twisted, but it happens all the time.  Mel tells Vera why he's firing her.  Mel must reasonably expect that 1) Vera will seek new employment, 2) Vera will be asked why she was fired from Mel's Diner, 3) Vera will answer truthfully.
In this scenario, Mel has completed two of the acts necessary to prove a case for defamation.  He has made a statement that is harmful to her reputation, and he has published that statement.  (By telling her something that he should expect her to repeat, he has made the statement public.  That is the twisted part, but it is true.)  If Vera can show that Mel either knew the damaging statement was false OR that he could not have known with absolute certainty that it was true, then he has defamed her.  So, if it turns out that Vera wasn't eating the bacon but throwing it away, Mel is  going to have to pay up.

There are times when you just have to fire somebody, but you have to avoid it and you have to be very careful what you say when you are doing it.  As it has been pointed out here, an employer may terminate any employee with or without a reason.  What an employer may NOT do is damage the reputation of the employee in the process.  You can fire him from this job, but you don't have the right to keep him from getting his next one.

Absolute nonsense.

Its stupid thinking like this that keeps lawyers gainfully employed.

[Laundry Man]

When terminating an employee, the only thing necessary to say to him is, "we won't be needing you to work here anymore."  Saying anything beyond that is just an invitation to a lawsuit.
Goofy as it may seem, Content1 is too close to correct.
If Mel fires Vera the waitress for eating all the bacon off the customers' plates and tells her why he's firing her, she may sue him for defaming her.  It's a little twisted, but it happens all the time.  Mel tells Vera why he's firing her.  Mel must reasonably expect that 1) Vera will seek new employment, 2) Vera will be asked why she was fired from Mel's Diner, 3) Vera will answer truthfully.

If you had used Alice instead of Vera, you really would be showing your age.
Merry Christmas,
LM

[Already Gone]

I believe to defame it has to cause harm to his public reputation, which so far as I can see this didn't do.

Also I've never seen a His word vs My word defamation case go very far!

It all depends on what that Superintendent said to him as he was giving him the boot.  As you point out, the "he said/she said" scenario here is very tenuous -- hardly sufficient to fire the guy.  Hence, HR back-tracked as they did.  "We really didn't fire you"  means "we didn't fire you for a bad or bogus reason for which you can sue us".

Lawyers can twist anything except what you don't say.  That is why it is so much better to just give they guy his check and send him on his way than to fire him for cause.  If he is a union member sent out by a local, then you have the risk of them sending him back the next time you call out for hire.  In that case, you have to decide if it is worth the risk to fire him to keep from getting him back.

The difference?  If you fire someone, you have to give a reason.  It had better be a watertight reason with lots of documentation and evidence.  You'll never have to rehire them, and you're off the hook for their unemployment benefits.
If you lay them off, no reason is needed -- so you have nothing to defend against.  You may have to rehire them at some point, and they get unemployment benefits.

Like I said, there are times when you just need to fire someone.  But, most of the time, the scales of risk-benefit tip toward laying the guy off.

[Marvin]

Azezzo...based on the working conditions you described, you lasted a lot longer than I would have.  We all make mistakes and have momentary lapses of reason...I wouldn't sweat it one way or the other.  The periodic schizo behavior can usually be put behind you...it's the repetitive, long term freaking out that can have a significant career impact.  Merry Christmas.

[Already Gone]

When I say "fire" I mean to terminate for cause.  To do so requires a cause by definition.  If you wish to challenge a UI claim, you have to terminate the employee for cause. Otherwise, the termination of an at-will employee is considered a layoff.

[Sun Dog]

When I say "fire" I mean to terminate for cause.  To do so requires a cause by definition.  If you wish to challenge a UI claim, you have to terminate the employee for cause. Otherwise, the termination of an at-will employee is considered a layoff.

But, by your own description, Mel is not committing defamation by telling the UI folks that Vera was terminated because he saw her scarfing the dead pig from the customer's plates and therefore ineligible for rehire at the diner.  Mel knows it is true (he saw it) and should not reasonably expect the good government employees at UI to share the information.

Either way, suing a maid because she told your boss that you MF'd her is nuts.   

[Already Gone]

Of course suing the maid is nuts.  She doesn't have any money.  But he could have sued the employer if they hadn't come down off the firing.

I don't agree with that either.  But it happens all the time.  If I fire you for cause, and tell you the cause, I may or may not have defamed you.  You can sue me either way.  It doesn't cost anything.  Chances are that I'll settle to make the case (and my lawyers' fees) go away, whether I did anything wrong or not.  So, what did I do wrong?  Simple, I gave you a reason to want to screw me by firing you.  SOOOOOO much simpler to just call it a layoff.

Firing people is a messy, expensive, litigious, and time-consuming process.  It is reserved for those cases where you just can't have that person working for you again and the risk of not firing them is great enough to make you want to go through the trouble.

This is why this happened:

well small personal victory today, I called the H.R. dept of the company, and was told I was not fired, but was suspended, and was asked, "didnt i sign the termination paperwork" which I wasnt given, So they said I was eligible for rehire, and will change the paperwork to personal resignation since i had told them prior my last day was in a week anyways. Oh, and that they would talk to the superintendant about the way he handled things

They tap-danced their way out of firing this guy - just as you'd expect them to do.

[shiftman]

So if I called you a whiney a$$@*!e based on your previous posts over the years, would that be slander, truth or simply an opinion?

I'm not an attorney, but I believe a complaint of written defamation is called "Libel".

[shiftman]

Wrong, again.

Depends:

Under a CBA, a termination will have to meet the "Just Cause" standard. if it is an employment contract, it will have to meet some established termination criterion.

Other than that, it fits the "at will" area for which no reason is required. we called this the "just cause they wanted to" standard.

That said, this one is a dead horse.