Blob gets the notice that the company is downsizing and that his position will no longer be needed. They let him know that next Friday will be his last day. Next Friday comes around and while Blob is cleaning out his desk he decides that his computer at home could use an external CD burner. Oh, just so happens that there is one in the tech supply cabinet down the hall. He grabs it and then is apprehended at the door by security. Until now, Blob had been an outstanding producer for the company (morals suspect).
How would the following things be affected.
Termination status.
Unemployment status.
Ability to use company as a reference.
Can the terminating company reveal the “truth” to future employers?
All answers depend on the company in question. How they handle the matter is completely up to them. Here are some Best case/worst case possiblilities, from Blob’s perspective:
Termination Status
Best case - Company says “No harm, no foul. We got the stuff back and he’s gone anyway”. The matter is dropped and nothing changes.
Worst case - Company has blob arrested and changes termination status from “downsized” to “fired with cause - stealing”.
Unemployment Status
Best Case - Termination status is still “downsized”, unemployment status is not affected.
Worst Case - Termination status is “fired with cause - stealing”, company challenges your right to unemployment compensation and wins. You get nothing. Of course, your in jail so you’re trading your body for smokes and candy bars- who needs cash?
References
Best Case - Company, as a matter of policy, only discloses length of service and salary. You can use them as a reference.
Worst Case - Company reports that you were fired for stealing. Not likely as most companies have the policy outlined in Best Case scenario, but still posssible. As long as they report the truth you can’t do much about it. In most cases companies do not want to take the chance of being sued, even if they’re right.
Unfortunately for Blob, there are almost unlimited combinations of scenarios and therefore no unequivical answer. Blob screwed up and is now at the mercy of the company.
Crud, still think I can post with out previewing. Change appropriate “your” to “you’re” and fix other gramatical errors at will. Also, should have added "IANAL, correct answers may vary by state, void where prohibited, do not fold, spindle or mutilate, do not use while sleeping, take with food (one large grain salt), etc, etc, post mortem, the end.
The bolded one Im still not sure about though. I thought the company can only say that you were terminated and not exactly for what reason. IOW, couldnt mention the word “theft”, but could say that you were fired.
I think Blog would have twice proved himself a fool by putting down that company as a reference. Unless there’s some extraordinary reason why this company must be a reference, Blog would be pretty well advised to thank his lucky stars that the incident was not reported to the police, and to cut his losses by using only other employement references.
I liked Doc’s answers, too. He’s correct on this point, too. No law prevents an employer from telling the world that Blob was fired for theft, aggravated mopery, or molesting the livestock. (Assuming the statement is true, of course. Else the employer is liable for defamation.)
The reason employers limit what they say about ex-employees is the fear of defamation claims, even if they are baseless. (Employee sues, claiming that the CD burner was planted on him. Even if employer ultimately convinces the court that Blob was a thief, employer still has to deal with the hassle and cost of litigation. Much simpler to say nothing.)
On the other hand, saying nothing can backfire. Let’s say Blob is a school janitor, and is fired because he attacked a sixth grader. Employer says nothing when New Employer School calls. Blob then attacks another kid. Under some circumstances, School 1 could have some legal responsibility. Admittedly unlikely, but not impossibile.
After the incident, do they fire him immediately or do they let his employment terminate due to the layoff?
In my jurisdiction, you are disqualified from receiving U/I if you are fired because of misconduct. So if the misconduct did not proximately cause the discharge, you are still potentially eligible for U/I.
For example, employers frequently discover stuff AFTER letting someone go and try to use it to fight the U/I claim. As a technical matter, such information is irrelevant since it had nothing to do with the decision to discharge.
Ok, so the guy was already on the way out the door, and the employer was willing to pay U/I. Would this theft effect his U/I status? Can the company challenge the U/I claims even though the real reason he was leaving was not the theft? The theft just expedited his departure.
According to some posts the answer is “maybe”.
Anyone know for sure?
My old man hires/fires pharmacists at a hospital. He had to let one go for stealing narcotics. The same guy also used my dad as a reference on his resume. His next potential employer calls my dad for a reference. My dad told the caller that the man did indeed work for him and that he was terminated. Then, (he knew the caller personally/professionally) he asked the caller if he had been missing any narcotics from his pharmacy lately. The caller got the hint.
It depends on how the company reacts, like Doctor Johnson said. If the company is nice, they do nothing, Blob is laid off, and he can get unemployment. The company would be well within its rights to change the reason for Blob’s departure from a layoff to a termination with cause because, in the scenario you describe, Blob is still on the job (even though his layoff would be effected in a matter of hours/minutes). If the company wants to fire him - which seems implied by the term, “the theft just expedited his departure,” then he would not get his unemployment.
Each state basically makes their own rules for how they administer unemployment, but all recognize that an employee shouldnt be compensated for getting fired for a good reason.