If you lose your job, remember what is most important to you - finding another job. Sure it might be important to talk to a lawyer to help negotiate a better severance or maybe you even want to sue your old employer, but that is not priority one. Finding a new employer is more important than anything. Here is a great blog post called
"Ten Ways to Use LinkedIn to Find a Job" by Guy Kawasaki.
I was reading an interesting blog post on The Ohio Employers Blog entitled “6 Tips to Avoid an Employment Lawsuit” and it brought out several key indicators that employees should consider if they get fired. If you have recently lost your job, ask yourself if any of the following four factors are present.
1. No Reason Given for your Termination
If a company fires someone, they will have a good reason for it. If your company is honest with you they will tell you the reason. In fact, a good company will have given you advance notice of the reason. But if your company does not give you a reason for your termination, then you should be suspicious. Let me give you a real life example. I have a 14 year-old son and he normally gets home from school at 3 p.m. On day, he showed up at 2 p.m. and I asked him why he was home early. He said, “no reason.” Well that smelled funny and further investigation revealed that he got in trouble at school and was sent home early. My son tried to pull a fast one. Some companies are just like teenagers who think they know it all and they try to pull fast ones too. Don’t believe it if it happens to you. Inquire further and if you don’t get a straight answer, think about calling a reputable employment lawyer because you might have a case
2. Bogus Reason Given for your Termination
The next tell tale sign of underhanded conduct is the bogus reason for termination. Sometimes companies try to put employees on the defensive by making false accusations of poor performance. It is a pretty good technique and it probably prevents a lot of lawsuits. But don’t fall for it. If you are doing your job and get fired for reasons that are plainly false, then your company might be trying to hide an illegal reason for terminating you.
3. Termination after Good Evaluation
If you are fired for alleged poor performance and you also have a history of positive performance evaluations, then you might have a case. The companies allegations of poor performance will be contradicted by it’s own evaluations. A termination under these circumstances looks suspicious.
4. The Company Violated its own Policies
Some companies create detailed termination policies and procedures. Many mangers do not know how to follow their own rules and often violate the policies. Check your company’s policy manual. If they did not follow their own rules, then that also looks suspicious.
It comes down to honesty and candor. Good companies are honest and they will not hesitate to provide the real reason for terminating an employee. But if a company tries to cover it up, then it creates problems for everyone. The ironic thing here is that a company is free to fire its employees and it does not even need good cause. Most all employees can be fired at the will of the company. So employers simply need to be honest when they fire people.
President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act this month to broaden an employee's right to sue for pay discrimination. A great summary of the Ledbetter act was just prepared by the American Bar Association's subcommittee on Labor and Employment Law. I posted in an excerpt below.
Implications of the Ledbetter Act
The Ledbetter Act exposes employers to pay discrimination liability for alleged discriminatory decisions, even though they may have been made years earlier, based on whether they have continuing impact on an employee's compensation. Furthermore, applying to claims of pay discrimination under Title VII, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the ADEA, the Act is not limited to claims based on gender discrimination, but also applies to pay discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, age, and disability.
The broad language of the Ledbetter Act also expands the potential pool of plaintiffs in several other respects. The Act re-triggers the limitations period with each paycheck, and whenever "benefits" or "other compensation" are paid. These terms arguably include the full gamut of entitlements that an employer's discriminatory decision could impact, including health benefits, paid leave, bonuses, stock options, and pension payments, though the Act clarifies that it will not allow employees to rely on post-retirement pension payments to stretch the limitations period beyond the end of the employment relationship. Specifically, the Act is not intended to "change current law treatment of when pension distributions are considered paid." This language preserves the rule that "pension distributions are considered paid upon entering retirement and not upon the issuance of each annuity check." See H.R. Rep. No. 110-237, at 18 (2007), citing Florida v. Long, 487 U.S. 223, 239 (1988); Maki v. Allete, Inc., 383 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 2004).
The Act also prohibits discriminatory compensation decisions as well as "other practices" that affect compensation. This language suggests that any practice that affects compensation-not just discreet decisions-may trigger a claim. Senator Arlen Specter proposed an amendment to the Act that would have stricken the "other practices" language, arguing it would "promote an enormous amount of litigation as to whether 'other practices' included such items as promotion, hiring, firing, training, tenure, [or] demotion." 155 Cong. Rec. S755 (daily ed. Jan. 22, 2009) (statement of Sen. Specter). Senator Barbara Mikulski, who sponsored the Senate bill, rejected Senator Specter's amendment because it did not cover "job evaluations," "classifications" and other "personnel actions that still result in discriminatory wages." 155 Cong. Rec. S758 (daily ed. Jan. 22, 2009) (statement of Sen. Mikulski, in effect confirming that the Act is intended to include a wide variety of practices.
The Ledbetter Act does not alter the limit on recovery of back pay to a maximum of two years preceding the filing of a discrimination charge under Title VII. Furthermore, the Act does not prevent an employer from asserting that an employee's claim is time-barred under the equitable doctrines of waiver, estoppel, or laches. 155 Cong. Rec. S754 (daily ed. Jan. 22, 2009) (statement of Sen. Mikulski).
Employer Perspective
Employers should ensure they have policies and procedures in place for documenting the reasons for their compensation decisions and retaining those documents and the data supporting the pay decisions they make. While retaining data can become quite burdensome and expensive over time, technology vendors are increasingly offering viable solutions, and the benefits may prove to outweigh the costs if litigation arises long after decisions are made. Employers should weigh these considerations in making compensation decisions and assessing their retention policies and programs.
Employee Perspective
The Ledbetter fix restores common sense to litigating claims involving compensation discrimination. Pay discrimination is an on-going and cumulative injury. Its harms do not become stale simply because the genesis for the discrimination occurred more than 180 or 300 days before the plaintiff filed an EEOC charge. The Ledbetter fix appropriately allows plaintiffs who are presently affected by compensation discrimination to redress that wrong, while limiting employer liability for back pay to the two years preceding the filing of the charge.
Working from home can be great. It is more comfortable and often less distracting and you don't have to waste time or money commuting. Also, companies can save money because they do not need as much space or support. A great example of a successful telecommuter is 88 year old United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
He does most of his work from his home in Florida and not in the hallowed halls of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. He goes to Washington when necessary to hear arguments, but other than that he works from home with a computer and telephone. Chuck Newton's blog about 3rd Wave Lawyers covers this story well.
In my view, law firms would do well to promote telecommuting. At The Ottinger Firm we encourage it and some of our lawyers rarely come to the office. This policy allows our firm to attract some very talented lawyers who want the freedom and good lifestyle.
