Fired for the straightdope

Factual Questions
1

Well, I wasn’t actually fired, but I had a job offer recinded.

Here’s the scoop.

I was caught looking at straightdope at work @ 1 1/2 years ago. My company didn’t have a strict internet policy, so i was just warned not to access the internet. I said o.k. , and nothing else was ever said. no counseling or discipline whatsoever.

Well, last week I was offered a dream job with another dept of my company, and accepted the offer with a start date and salary negotiation. But then a supervisor at my work (not my supervisor) was angry for some reason that i got the job and called over to my new boss and told her that i was a security risk because of this and my new boss recinded the offer. my new boss didn’t even want to meet with me or discuss it.

Does anyone know what rights I have as far as contract breaching or slander or anything else? I’m in texas which is a right to work state, but then again, i had a verbal agreement for a job.

2

your supervisor broke the law. you new possible job is allowed to call for reference to see that you actually did work where you say you did, but your current employer is not allowed to slander you in any way, preventing you from getting a job.

3

It sounds to me like both the old boss and the new boss are Trouble. If the new boss really wanted you for the job and was told something that minor, hew should have called you in personally and talked about it. To rescind a job offer for something like that (unless old boss made up something!) is bizarre, and would not bode well for the future.

I know this is cold comfort . . . But I’d try to get away from that entire workplace if you can! Them guys is NERTZ.

4

Living in Texas, I can’t believe you don’t know the answer to this one. It’s the one I’d look into. It involves a .357 magnum and a ski mask… :stuck_out_tongue:

5

Hmm, in this case, current employer == future employer.

He didn’t lose a job, he just didn’t receive a new position. I’m assuming that by departments, he means departments of the same company. Surely, company records are open to all departments, for managers of the appropriate level?

6

It’s not that simple.

Rule of thumb: It ain’t slander if it’s true. Truth is an absolute defense for any claim of defamation. If all your boss did was relate a true story about you accessing the internet at work, you don’t have a slander claim.

On the other hand, if you seek legal counsel, you might want to ask about the alternative theories of “tortious interference with contractual relationship” or “tortious interference with business relationship”. Don’t know how Texas law works, but those might give you a better leg to stand on. The problem with the former, though, is that it sounds like you had not worked out all the details on your new job, so there might be some question as to whether you even had a “contract” with which your boss interfered.

I would at least sit down with a lawyer, though. There may be theories under Texas law which could provide you with some recourse.

7

You live in Texas? Alas! You are tres screwed.

Of all the states, none has ever so feverishly inclined thier laws to reflect what’s “good for bidness”.

Of course, you have your rights.

You have the right to remain silent…

Come to think of it, it’s not plural.

As a recovering Texan, my advice is: hie hence! Flee!

Quote from Upton Sinclair:
“There are two things no civilized person should ever be forced to witness. One is what really goes into sausage, and the other is what a Texas politician does for his daily bread”.

8

Either a) you’re working for jerks, or b) there are a few minor details you’re leaving out.

I suspect a little of both.

9

Have you thought of writing a letter? If its a neat job that you want, maybe pursuing it peacefully and with thought would convince them that you are the right person for the job. A simple declaration of the facts as you know them, a brief explanation and statement of “ain’t gonna do that again, I learned my lesson,” and a request for their explanation on the subject. Maybe also request an official meeting with previous bosses so you can all hash this out together. Maybe CC it to some important people (include the CC names in the document) so that they cannot ignore it. Don’t whine, don’t plead, don’t accuse. Just simply and clearly discuss it. Write it on paper (NOT email), sign it, and inter-office deliver it and all of the CC’s so that it has to be filed in your records.

I like to fight shadow-office politics by being completely out in the open. If you come clean, then they are going to have a fun time explaining why looking at a website 1.5 years ago is a security risk.

10

duh!
missed the fact that it was just a different department. oops. i’m only right in the case that’s its a different company. sorry bud, he’s allowed to do that. but he’s still a JERK! maybe you should round up a posse and cap his @$$!

11

Amazing what passes here for the “Straight Dope” at times. :rolleyes:
Let’s for the nonce assume the facts as stated by Metroshane are true (else why bother answering?). The salient points:

  1. Discipline in past for improper use of computer at work.

  2. Employer offers position “with start date and salary negotiation” (we will assume this means the date he would assume the position was set, the salary was not finalized).

  3. Employee calls new boss and advises of fact 1) occurred, and possibly asserts the opinion that Metroshane is a ‘security risk’.

  4. “Offer” is rescinded.
    A) Does Metroshane have a cause of action against the co-employee who blew the whistle?

It has been suggested that the co-employee ‘slandered’ Metroshane. Assuming the co-employee stated that Metroshane had been disciplined for improper computer use, this is a true statement, and thus was not slander. To the extent the co-employee offered an opinion about Metroshane, that can’t be slander (in general, opinions are not ‘true’ or ‘false’). Soulsing is incorrect regardless of who the new employer is, and needs to stop dispensing incorrect legal advice.

It has been suggested that there might have been tortious interference with a contractural or business relationship. In general, to establish this tort, there has to be some improper activity by the person accused of tortious conduct. For example, if I offer a series of opinions about a person with no factual basis for my opinions, purely in an attempt to keep him from getting hired, that might be a tort. Again, since there is only a statement of fact and an opinion based on that statement, it is unlikely that tortious interference with contract would lie, though you certainly could talk to a Texas attorney who specializes in employment law (and should, if you want an answer of real value.

B) Does Metroshane have recourse against the employer?

We start with the question, did a contract exist? Let us assume for kicks and giggles that the “offer” from the new boss was sufficient to bind the company, either because the boss had the authority, or because the company will be estopped from denying his authority. The fact that a start date was set would be strong evidence that some agreement had been reached, with details to be determined later. For now, assume there was a contract.

Was there, then, a breach of that contract? Probably not, though again this is the sort of thing you are better asking an attorney from the state within which the contract was made. It sounds like the employment was ‘at will’, meaning that either party could terminate the contract when they wanted to, within the law. If so, then the only limitations on the employer would be state law regarding wrongful termination. Such laws usually prevent employers from violating a strong public policy by terminating an employee, e.g.: terminating someone because of their race, or sexual orientation, etc. The employer may be required by state law to follow its ‘rules’ regarding termination, if any, and may be prevented from terminating someone if they don’t follow the ‘rules’ (such as notice, hearing, increasing severity of penalties, etc.). There are some complicated issues here, such as potential probationary status, possible implied terms of the ‘contract’, etc., so you really can’t CONCLUDE anything about a cause of action against the employer.

From a practical standpoint, assuming that going to someone higher up doesn’t resolve the issue amicably, who the hell wants to work for an employer they have to sue to force the employer to give them a job?

The forgoing legal analysis is NOT intended to be complete or substitute for going and seeing an attorney in the state in question who specializes in employment law. I offer it solely to give some road map to the issues raised in prior posts, some of which are notably silly and hardly belong in a forum devoted to providing the truth.

Good luck, Metroshane! :slight_smile:

12

I’m curious.

In California, an employer is only allowed to divulge information of employment and whether they would hire said person again, right?

So my boss can say, “Yes, GaWd worked for me for x years, and yes/no I would/nt hire him again”. Any info offered in excess of those points is unnecessary/unethical. I even know of one person who’s suing their former employer for the above.

So, torts and contracts aside, hasn’t said former employer broken the law?(I don’t know what the law in Tx is)

So, if the above is true(I’ve always been led to believe it is), the employer is violating his civil liberties.

-Sam

13

nope, don’t think so.
I am completely correct in that if one has applied for a job at a company or business other than ones current employ, hoping to in fact leave current employ regardless of the reasons, current employer can only on being called for reference give information on employee wishing to find new employment regarding truth to status of employment, length of employment and salary.
i’ve been through this myself, on all three ends. was never allowed to ask quetions other than whether my candidate for employment had worked where he said he worked, for how long, and what his salary was. When i was to be hired at a new company, my previous manager slandered me, my new employer saw past it, questioned me about it, and offered legal protection and help in filing charges. I have been called by other companies, in regards to employees of mine leaving for their business, and would be asked only the same questions.
so…
DSYoungEsq, is incorrect regardless of how high on his horse he sits, and needs to stop dispensing incorrect legal advice.
i have respected your posts so far DS, and still do, looking past this little quip of yours, if you yourself are not sure of the laws regarding this, don’t preach, especially to those of us with the hard experience to teach us what the truth is. Snobbery gets you no where.

a new employer may seek out a background check if they want to. This would refer to any government records, and may ask for medical records as well, from the new hire. Questions to the previous employer cannot include these though.
This doesn’t affect internal hiring, it’s the same company, they have the same records (or should), so there’s no law protecting him there. If he were to have some sort of outside record, say having been reported to the police for being a security risk, the new hire may obtain thost police records. That is done with the background check.

it truly is amazing what passes for the straight dope DS!.

14

This probably doesn’t matter, but I’ll throw this in anyway. California is a right to work state, Texas is a right to hire state. You’re pretty much screwed.

15

incidentally here is a link that might help you out with any further legal questions.

16

Soulsling, I looked at your cite, and didn’t find anything relevant.

I’m not a lawyer but am an employer who has asked and answered many reference checks. Coincidently, I was working with my lawyer today, so asked him about this as an aside. Here’s the gist of it clipped from emails:

Bill:

Lawyer:

Note that this isn’t “the law”, as much as “the safe path”.

By the way, I should say that this is a pretty typical response from lawyers: Be safe, be guarded, don’t expose yourself any more than you have to.

Also, to the OP, metroshane, as I eluded to earlier, I think there’s a bit you’re not telling us. What is your relationship with the rat-fink? Is there any history here? Why are they mad you were offered a job?

My advice would be to talk with the potential new supervisor. I know you said she won’t talk to you, but insist on it. Send her an email, saying “I know I’m perfect for this position and I’d really like an opportunity to talk to you and explain why. Just give me a half hour to discuss it.”

If someone is a jerk to you, they’re probably a jerk in general, and everyone knows it. So if the rat-fink really is a jerk and the new supervisor trusts that jerk, that means the new supervisor is probably a jerk and this isn’t the dream job you’re hoping for.

17

Quote from Soulsling:

Assuming the existence of a privacy law that precludes an employer from discussing the contents of your employment file, and assuming that the employer violated that law, that would not be slander, which is a different type of unlawful action. Therefore, as I correctly pointed out in my previous post, the assertion by soulsling that the issue was one of slander was incorrect.

California’s privacy laws are far more extensive than most states, since California has a constitutional privacy right and often a liberal viewpoint not shared by many other states. In any event, such a law would not apply to Metroshane, who is not switching employers. Please note I never advised one way or the other about such a law, precisely because it is inapplicable to the situation involved.

I responded the way I did because I deplore non-attorneys dispensing what they think is correct law, not because I think attorneys are special, but because I think that laymen with complicated law questions need to seek competent legal advice. The first and second posts by soulsling clarify precisely why I feel that way.

18

and there was slander in the case of Metroshane, since his supervisor called him a security risk for surfing the web 1 1/2 years ago. in what way is that a measure of a security risk at any company, given that i am a network administrator, i know it’s the responsiblity of the net admin to maintain the security whether it’s through simple password protection to firewalls. Metroshane, was thus slandered.
So unless he is still not telling us some things, there is nothing incompetent to my advice given the fact that i have been through this in practice before. Only mistake i made was in missing the fact that he was moving within the company, which in this case means my advice is useless. Otherwise, you’re arguing that if he were to move to another company, and this were to happen, my advice wouldn’t be safe to heed. When i did see the mistake i made, i did mention that i was wrong, or did you overlook that?

Therefore, here you are wrong:

and

something i pointed out already before you showed up.
as for deploring non-attorneys dispensing what they think is correct law, whether you think they are special or not, and because you feel complicated law should be dealt with by competent lawyers, you are correct, and i would never stand in the way of a lawyer providing legal advice, but in the case of

by Metroshane, i was offering my legitimate experience in such a situation (were it outside his company) as to his rights, and what he may do about it.

I have found that when proffessionals, even myself, encounter a situation where they feel it is their field to know these things above the laymen, they often forget where they are coming from, and forget to come down from their high horse, and sometimes more so, because they ride so high, don’t see the line on the ground they are crossing, they tend to explode at the slightest of issues. This was a man asking if anyone knew where he stood as far as his rights were concerned, if anyone could offer help, and i mistakenly overlooked the fact this was inter-company related. I apologized for my mistake, and took back what i said as far as his situation was concerned. He does have the right to follow through with my advice were he to be applying at another company. I wouldn’t have had the experiences i did otherwise. Every lawyer alwasy advises caution, that doesn’t make them GOOD lawyers, that makes them JUST plain lawyers.

thats what us laymen call lawyer-speak. In other words, “i advise against it, you as the employer won’t get away with it, and i don’t want to have to defend you and lose in such a situation”
don’t even arguing against that one, never met a lawyer who didn’t feel that way. I know plenty of lawyers, and i spoke to two of them today as well. I am right. Slander is illegal, it violates civil rights. As for employers billiehunt, they too have the tendency to shy away from these matters since they encounter it frequently enough. They too have the tendency to ride their high horse, (forgetting where they came from…) and it’s a shame most employees are not educated enough to learn they can stand up to their employers in so many situations.
I will gladly admit when i am wrong DSYoungEsq, but my apologies for your taking all this so personally and feeling the need to prove your lawyerly worth. I am not wrong in what i said.
I sincerly hope your days are well.

19

I’m surprised no one’s mentioned it yet, but have you thought of going through your HR department? From the sound of it, you work in a large company/corporation and should have access to one to bring up grievances such as this…

BTW, I thought that the advice that billehunt’s attorney gave was rather straight forward. Hardly cause for any accusation of “legalese.”

20

soulsling wrote

My read on your statement is that I said or implied that employers don’t get or give details in reference checks. Well, I didn’t describe my experiences as an employer, but allow me to:

I have given many, many references, and I have done many, many reference checks. I have always given the good, bad and ugly, and I have always asked for (and gotten) the same. The advice of my lawyer in the previous post is unlikely to change my behavior. A change in the law will change things, but currently, my take is that telling the truth is legal. Frankly, I’d be disturbed if telling the truth became illegal.

In my experience, in the real world, people don’t hide the warts about you. I don’t think they should. I’m not just an employer, I’m an employee as well and I’m happy to see my past perused. In general, I’m proud of my accomplishments, but I’m certainly not perfect. I’m not proud of past mistakes, but I don’t feel they should be hidden.

Now slander on the other hand is illegal and obviously should be. But that’s irrelevant, because it’s clear from reading the OP that metroshane was not slandered.