How do I explain to an interviewer that I was fired?

[Love_Rhombus]

@billfish678

So you agree with the point I made first. That some errors, even very minor, are not tolerated? Even though in a realistic world they would be.

Perhaps the OP should spread his bets so to speak. Tell 1/3 of the jobs he applies to the whole story. Another third nothing (and he tells the references to say nothing about the actual firing details either). Then, the final third he says nothing but tells the references its okay to tell the details of why he was fired.

I like your optimism about my job prospects.

[DMark]

@SpoilerVirgin

In the interest of fighting ignorance, this is 100% false. There are no Federal or state laws that prevent employers from saying anything they like about you as long as it is true. Many states even have laws that exempt employers from defamation suits as long as they provide true information. Many companies do follow the “dates only” policy in order to avoid potential lawsuits, but there is no legal obligation for them to do so. There are even cases where companies have been sued for not disclosing information about a former employee to prospective employers. So unless you are certain of your company’s policy, you should never assume that they won’t disclose the reason you were fired.

Thank you and I stand corrected.

Perhaps the people I have worked for simply stated it so strongly that I incorrectly assumed it was law.
But I would agree with this passage from your link:
“As a result of the dangers of potential suits over defamation which appear to be on the rise, many companies limit their statements about former employees to confirmation of the dates of employment. Employers are often advised “curb their enthusiasm” for detailing the negative attributes of a former employee.”

So while there is no law on the books forbidding going into detail, I think it is common practice to keep specifics under wraps.

[DrDeth]

Did you apply for unemployment? Was it paid?

[Turble]

How about “I didn’t function well in that environment. The noise really affected my ability to concentrate. It just wasn’t the right place for me.”

[SpoilerVirgin]

@HMS_Irruncible

I’d be interested in a cite in your claim that employers have been sued for not providing negative information on previous employees. If there were criminal charges then I could believe that, but just for failing to provide unobjective he-said-she-said stuff? I’d be highly surprised.

This article cites a number of cases of negligent referral:

The California Supreme Court in 1997 permitted a student who alleged sexual molestation by a teacher to sue that teacher’s previous employer which had provided that student’s school with a favorable reference. The former employer failed to mention in the reference that the school had received complaints of sexual harassment and improper touching by that teacher. The letter of recommendation for the employee in this case praised his skills and unconditionally recommended him for an administrative position. He was hired by another school district where he allegedly sexually assaulted a 13 year old student…The California Supreme Court decided that the positive recommendation given by the former employer amounted to “misleading half-truths” for purposes of negligent misrepresentation…none of the prior complaints about the former employee had been confirmed through any form of evidentiary hearing in which the employee was accorded due process.

Jerner v. Allstate Insurance Co. involves an employee who was fired and then given a neutral reference by the former employer. When he was later fired by his new employer, he then returned to the second employer’s place of business and shot five people, killing three of them. The gunman, Paul Calden, worked for Allstate Insurance Company for only nine months. He exhibited some bizarre behavior during that time. He refused to have his photograph taken, asserting that his image couldn’t be captured on film; he claimed that he was from another planet; and he compiled a list of co-workers and wrote the word “blood” next to their names…Allstate had a policy of not giving any recommendation letters for former employees to subsequent employers. Nevertheless, they gave Calden a letter of recommendation in spite of his behaviors. The letter stated that he had voluntarily resigned because his position had been eliminated in restructuring. Allstate apparently provided the letter because the company did not want him to get angry over his firing…Allstate eventually settled for an undisclosed sum.

Neither of these cases involved actual criminal charges being brought against the employee while he worked for the first employer. The information not included in the recommendations consisted of allegations and bizarre behavior, yet they were still successfully sued.

There definitely can be negative consequences to giving a positive or even a neutral reference if you omit negative information. Most employers still follow the neutral “Yes, he worked here” policy, but employees should be aware that this is not required by law and an employer is unlikely to face consequences for providing true information about you in a reference, even if it is negative.

[Yeticus_Rex]

@SpoilerVirgin

In the interest of fighting ignorance, this is 100% false. There are no Federal or state laws that prevent employers from saying anything they like about you as long as it is true. Many states even have laws that exempt employers from defamation suits as long as they provide true information. Many companies do follow the “dates only” policy in order to avoid potential lawsuits, but there is no legal obligation for them to do so. There are even cases where companies have been sued for not disclosing information about a former employee to prospective employers. So unless you are certain of your company’s policy, you should never assume that they won’t disclose the reason you were fired.

@HMS_Irruncible

The thing to keep in mind here, though, is this: what’s the previous employer’s upside in providing negative information to your future employer? Virtually none.* What’s their downside? Potentially the cost of a libel lawsuit, and also bad reputation among prospective job applicants. It’s all loss and no gain for them, so why would they even bother? The math overwhelmingly works out in favor of saying nothing.

*I’d be interested in a cite in your claim that employers have been sued for not providing negative information on previous employees. If there were criminal charges then I could believe that, but just for failing to provide unobjective he-said-she-said stuff? I’d be highly surprised.

@DMark

Thank you and I stand corrected.

Perhaps the people I have worked for simply stated it so strongly that I incorrectly assumed it was law.
But I would agree with this passage from your link:
“As a result of the dangers of potential suits over defamation which appear to be on the rise, many companies limit their statements about former employees to confirmation of the dates of employment. Employers are often advised “curb their enthusiasm” for detailing the negative attributes of a former employee.”

So while there is no law on the books forbidding going into detail, I think it is common practice to keep specifics under wraps.

I am posting as a previous employer who receives calls from potential future employers to verify employment history of an ex-employee. As a past employer, I only answer objective questions and avoid answering subjective questions, and will even point out to the verifier that his/her question is subjective and I will not answer…but, in order to differentiate a good ex-employee and a bad ex-employee, about 90% of the time, a verifier will ask “Is <ex-employee> rehireable?” If the employee left on good terms (good work habits, good attendance, good attitude, and gave sufficient notice), I would reply “Yes.” If that wasn’t true, I would let the verifier know that we do give annual reviews of each employee, and the employee was given copies of their reviews, and that the verifier should ask for a copy of it, and that we can furnish another copy of it to the ex-employee again if they don’t have it. It takes our company totally out of the equation of any liabilities. Some verifiers know enough that this employee might be a problem, but I leave it up to them to make that determination without any subjective answer.

LR, count on a verifier asking your previous employer that question and whether or not your job prospect will survive that answer.

Edit: Even if I gave a favorable rehireable response, those are backed by good annual reviews and would stand in court.

[Love_Rhombus]

“If the employee left on good terms (good work habits, good attendance, good attitude, and gave sufficient notice)”

Well, I’ve got three out of the four (couldn’t really give sufficient notice, obviously). And I think I did well at the interview. Crushed most all of the questions, underlined my customer service skills. She did ask specifically why I left and I balled up and told her. She said that it didn’t seem enough reason to let me go, didn’t write it down. We’ll see how it goes for your experiment, billfish. DrDeth, I did apply for unemployement. We’ll see how it goes. I should hear back one way or the other by the end of next week.

[Dallas_Jones]

Your prospective new employer will probably call your old employer. Most human resource departments will not offer much in the way of information about your time there.

They will tell that you were employed between such and such dates.

The prospective HR department will then usually ask if you are eligible for re-hire.

A no answer means that you were fired, a yes answer indicates that you were either laid off or left under good terms.

This is how the “was he fired” question is avoided without liability for either party.

[DrDeth]

If you qualify for Unemployment, you were not fired for cause. Thereby it doesn’t matter whether they say fired, terminated or laid off.

[Khadaji]

@Love_Rhombus

“If the employee left on good terms (good work habits, good attendance, good attitude, and gave sufficient notice)”

Well, I’ve got three out of the four (couldn’t really give sufficient notice, obviously). And I think I did well at the interview. Crushed most all of the questions, underlined my customer service skills. She did ask specifically why I left and I balled up and told her. She said that it didn’t seem enough reason to let me go, didn’t write it down. We’ll see how it goes for your experiment, billfish. DrDeth, I did apply for unemployement. We’ll see how it goes. I should hear back one way or the other by the end of next week.

I think you did the right thing - as one who often is in a hiring position, I would not have held it against you. Good luck!

[Love_Rhombus]

An update, if anyone was curious: didn’t get the job.

Ah well, next time I say nothing - I was “laid off.”