My company has recently “restructured”, causing my position to be eliminated. I am being offered a different position, but one that I consider unreasonable. I am being told that if I do not want this position, I am essentially quitting - meaning no severance pay.
Here’s the details that make this somewhat complicated.
I live in California - it’s my understanding that severance is not required by law.
Some people at our offices have been given severance; others have been given my option.
The position we are being offered is a commission sales position. They are claiming that we have the possibility of making the same income - but in the four years that I did this job, I averaged 2/3’s of what I make now.
Last time there where layoffs, about a year and a half ago, the people in my position were offered severance.
Finally, and possibly most importantly, I was recruited from my previous position to this one just over a year ago. I was relocated to an area that is significantly more expensive (approx. 3X the rent I was paying). Also, the position I’m being offered is less than
So, my question is this - knowing that severance is not legally required, can I still make a case for it because of a precedence set?
Also, if that won’t work, can I make a case due to the relocation issue?
I am not a lawyer in California, which is what you need, but I can provide some basic information.
California does allow employment at will which may be terminated without cause on notice. The question then is whether your employment was actually at will. In this regard any written or oral representations that employment would not be terminated except with just cause could be sufficient to overturn a presumption of at will. Conversley a letter offering employment that states it is at will would strengthen the presumption. The previous practice of providing severance might be considerred a general policy of employment that the company would be forced to honor.
On the facts you have provided I would be inclined to believe that the proposed change in your employment status would be sufficient to constitute a constructive dismisal. This means that the change is sufficient to constitute a repudiation of the initial employment agreement notwithstanding the offer of alternative employment. You need a California lawyer to ensure that this change meets the tests required in your jurisdiction.
When faced with a fundamental alteration of contractual terms such as this you are left with two options: accept the new terms or accept the repudiation of contract, cease employment and sue. In other words, in order to sue you would have to quit.
Relocation would likely not constitute a seperate cause of action but may be evidence that employment was not at will. It could also go to the quantum of damages for wrongful termination.