A board of directors for a local non-profit just sent a letter out to all their contacts informing them they had asked for the resignation of an employee, and please have patience while we work through the transition, yadda yadda yadda. Ignoring the gaping breach of manners and professionalism displayed by this letter, does the employee* have any legal recourse? I have heard from Human Resource personnel that you should never bad-mouth a former employee when being used as a reference - simply confirm the dates of employment and nothing else if you don’t have anything good to say - but the letter here doesn’t say anything bad. But being asked for a resignation is certainly bad in and of itself, isn’t it?
*(For the record, I am not that employee, nor do I have any contact whatsoever with the person in question.)
I suspect the level of detail “we asked for his resignation” is a good way of letting people know what’s happening, to the detriment of the employee. If it is a community where rumours may spread, a certain level of facts is a good idea. OTOH, telling people “we fired him” may be gratuitous payback.
Just as a side note - in some jurisdictions in Canada, the board of directors are personally and each liable for any outstanding separation pay if it is a non-profit organization and the organization itself cannot pay the amount. Considering that depending on circumstances, unless a person in Canada is fired for “cause” - theft, insubordination, serious negligence - that amount can run up to 24 months, and the liability of any board member is quite high. I recall one organization where the petty politicos were trying to fire a building manager, and I warned the other board members - who were the ones with money - what they were exposing themselves to. Another, the manager and the board chair got into a catfight and she was fired, then won a year’s salary off them. Fortunately, the charity could afford it, but it cut into their fund raising for several years.
There is a situation called “Wallace Damages” (Wallace got the first ruling) where treating a departing employee in less than good faith earns a higher award for the departing employee. In the case of Wallace, IIRC, they had security escort him out and tried to claim he had been fired for cause when there was none.
Of course, in the USA employees have significantly less rights and entitlements.
Have you got a cite for this case? I’d like to read it.
“Wallace damages” have effectively been done away with by Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 362, 2008 SCC 39. Claimants can still make claims for the manner of dismissal, but extending the notice period will no longer be done. As well, there are a number of other applicable conditions before the Court will consider such an award under this head of damages.
Not lawyer, but saying we had an employee resign would have been acceptable. Stating they requested his resignation is effectively stating they fired him. That may be actionable. Consult an actual attorney in that jurisdiction.
What makes you think you can’t say something negative? Of course you can. As long as it’s the truth.
Then why do H/R people usually not do it? They want to prevent a lawsuit. Now if I say something negative and it’s true and you sue me, you will lose. But I still have to defend the cost of that suit.
This is why, not 'cause it’s illegal or anything.
Different states have different court cases, but things like this get out of hand because people confuse, settling with guilt. For instance in IL less than one half of one percent of all sexual harrassment suits are won. Almost all are settle out of court, 'cause it’s easier and cheaper. But sexual harrassment is really hard to prove.
In order to win something like the OP senerio, you’d have to prove the statement was false. The false statement was DELIBERATELY given out in an attempt to harm the ex-employee and you’d also have to prove actual damages. That the company didn’t hire you because of the bad reference, not because someone else was more qualified.
I used to work in H/R and it’s always overkill on the “you can’t do that,” simply because they don’t want to defend against a suit. Not because you really can’t do it