No details tonight, but I promise to describe the whole sorry mess after the hearing. Former employer has sought to deny me unemployment benefits (and DOL stopped sending them immediately pending outcome of all this), DOL initially found in their favor, tomorrow is the hearing.
Good luck.
Best of luck.
And if your former employer is doing this just to screw with you, then fuck them sideways with a rusty saw.
Good luck Ahunter. 
Best wishes!! A similar thing happened to me… my former employer blocked my unemployment by lying about me (pretty much just to f*ck with me because she was an evil bitch) and I was denied benefits, then I appealed, but at the very last minute I had a panic attack and could not bear to show up in person to face her, and I dropped it - literally the day of, after weeks of work and research to prepare my case. I was a total wimp and did not have your courage. Good luck!!
Hatin’ on your evil boss from afar. Can’t wait to hear the gory details (as long as all the pain and bleeding is on his side).
Sending luck thoughts your way!
GOOD LUCK!
My brother was once “set up” for being fired “for cause” by his employer, which was looking to trim payroll somewhat. Without going into details, he did Thing A, which had been the standard for Situation A, when behind his back - and without informing him - they changed the official procedure to be Thing B.
So they fired him for doing Thing A when he was “supposed” to do Thing B.
His unemployment claim was denied. He appealed - and won.
Side question: why are companies sooooo interested in denying unemployment to their ex-employees. I know their unemployment insurance rate can go up as a result, but is the rate change that punitive? especially as it’s only on the first few thousand of an employee’s earnings? I’m genuinely curious. We had (until a year ago) a nanny, and did everything all legal - social security, unemployment etc. so when we had to let her go (cash-flow issues) she was all set to collect. I later got a notice of my unemployment tax rate for 2009 and yeah, it had increased. If we had an employee this year we might have to pay 50 dollars rather than 25 in total. Is the hit really that much bigger for bigger companies? or are they all shits in principal and deny everything in the hopes it’ll benefit them?
For these kind of instances, I doubt its even the bottom line, particularly given that getting caught doing this wrong and the time involved with it probably costs a company more over the long haul than just allowing the claim.
I think its just crazy asshole ex-bosses just looking to stick it the ex-employee just for the sake of doing so, even when it doesnt benifit the company to do so.
I’m back, hearing went well (I think), will have the outcome mailed to me within 6 weeks and probably sooner.
Employer did not send anyone to represent their side, so it was uncontested. That’s not quite as slam-dunk as it may sound, as the judge is still supposed to review the evidence and if after having done so determined that NO, I am not entitled to unemployment, I can still lose the hearing. But the legal aid person said it helps that they did a no-show.
Here’s the story, as promised.
Backstory first:
I’m a FileMaker developer, a database geek. I live in New York. Company in question is in Minneapolis Minnesota, and I worked remotely, developing and maintaining their database from my New York studio from May 07 until the whole thing unravelled this last winter. Full time permanent employee, well paid for it (70K with bennies, 401k with employer contribs, etc), and reported only to the CEO of the company and was totally in charge of the database. I managed the server box that hosted it and the hosting software (FileMaker Server Advanced 8.0), I rebuilt their sprawling tangled mass of 56 files and 414 tables as a single-file modernized solution of less than 60 tables in a much cleaner architecture in less than 4 months as promised including porting the legacy data over and hosting it for corporate use. I made all the structural decisions, listened to feature requests and change requests and aolicited bug reports, and looked at all those and made my own determinations about how to implement changes, what operating system patches & service updates to install and when and whether to use this or that type of hard disk for the backups and so on. All of it, my kitchen, and I was the chef.
SO! This last December, I go to check my emails to see if there are any fires I need to put out before commuting from girlfriend’s apartment to my work studio and WHOA, Eudora throws errors about validation, can’t log in to their email server, connection refused. So I launch the Instant messenger app, which is set up to do an auto-login with the account the company had set up for me. WHOA AGAIN, that also errors out. OK the email server is their own but the instant messenger service is freaking AOL. They’ve cut me loose haven’t they? So I launch FileMaker and go to log into the database. Sure as hell, they’ve disabled my account in the database that I built for them. So to complete the cycle, I launch Apple Remote Access to make a remote “control” connection to the FileMaker Server machine itself, mostly at this point to verify what I’m pretty sure of, and yep that’s been disabled as well. I’ve been evicted from my virtual office. I obviously do not work for them any more and they will shortly call to tell me so, right?
A couple hours go by and the CEO of the company, my immediate boss, calls. First thing he says is “Hello AHunter3. I want you to know that you still have a job with us. We have disabled access to the system while we work out a backup problem we are having. We will keep you informed”.
I go 
Huh? So totally NOT what I was expecting to hear that I kind of just sit there inert and he asks about a personnel problem and we chat about that and then the phone call ends. And I’m still going
Over the next couple days I exchange emails back-channel wtih some of the employees there that I trust the most, using my personal email account (since the corporate one is disabled). I am told that the company is ditching FileMaker because the new IT Director as of August '08 is a Ruby guy who hates FileMaker. But that beyond that no one is telling them anything either and they are annoyed and confused, too.
Days go by. I just wait. Payday comes and I get my regular direct deposit. I check the amount. They are paying me my full salary. I just can’t possibly do anything for them. This is freaking weird. Limbo-land.
I figure either
a) Insofar as the company has a reputation for deliberately trying to deny unemployment benefits, they were hoping I’d get crazy-mad and try to log on using someone else’s account and password or otherwise do something that they could point to and say “That was unprofessional and dangerously inappropriate behavior and that’s why we had to FIRE him”, or else that I’d stalk off in anger saying “I fucking quit, go manage your own fucking database”. Not happening. I’m being Mister Cool Cat and am willing to “not work” for you for the same wages you were paying me to be your developer. OR
b) They are putting together a case against me for god only knows what, but are not ready to confront me with it, and while I have not done anything, it would be best if I don’t run the risk of making things worse by askiing what the hell is going on, because YES, I’m quite angry. And I don’t want my temper to make anything worse than it might otherwise be, ya know?
CHAPTER TWO: LIMBO
In drips and spits, I am occasionally contacted over the course of the next month by former coworkers (NOT the boss to whom I had been reporting) and I am asked to make some minor changes, NOT to the live database which I am still not given access to, but to an offline copy on another server. I do what is asked of me.
I am developing the suspicion that they intended to flip over to Ruby on Rails on the day when they cut off all my access privs, and maybe something did not go right and they are holding on to me “in case they need me” while they try to get the conversion to work properly. It’s all conjectural. I don’t really know.
I probably end up doing a full 2 hours of actual work for them spread out across a month of real time, all of it on the offline copy of the database.
In mid-January they ask me to mail in my company-issued cell phone, and I do so. I figure this indicates they are closing in on the moment when they will let the other shoe drop and tell me I’m terminated.
I am also informed by former coworker that the company has hired an outside consulting company that specialized in FileMaker Pro. So whatever remaining FileMaker tasks they think they still need done (aha, they DID hit a snag with their Ruby deployment!! :D)), they aren’t going to use me for it.
Still, nothing happens until Febuary 2nd, actually.
THE EMAIL: FAIR PARTING
ON 2/2/09 I get an email. it is from the admin assistant to the company CEO for whom I work/worked. All it says is “See attached” and the rest of the email is a forward.
The forwarded email was apparently written TO the admin assistant by the CEO saying that I probably did not get the email because I was not aware that my email account had been reactivated. (well DUH!). And that AHunter3 has until noon on Monday to reply to this. Well 2/2/09 was Monday. I received the email at 9:45 AM or thereabouts so I had an ultimatum due in 2 hrs 15 mins plus or minus.
Below THAT was yet another forwarded email, apparently originally sent to ME at my defunct (or no-longer-defunct?) corporate email address, saying I should read the attachment which spells out conditions for “reinstatement” as their developer (but remember, I’m not suspended! No one has said diddly squat about me being suspended or anything!), and I have to reply with a very literal text string like “Mr CEO, I, AHunter3, accept the conditions and descriptions and I believe that I can contribute to your company’s endeavors in the letter an d spirit in which this communication was devised”.
OR, it went on to say, "if you do not feel you can make a meaningful contribution to our company within those parameters, will move to a “fair parting”.
File attachment was NOT a normal job description or a set of specified parameters such as you would expect. Instead, file attachment was a PDF of two other emails, one from the consulting company and one from the IT Director who hates FileMaker. Both of them describe things I will NOT be allowed to do or describe highly limited situations in which I would be allowed to do development work (not on my own computer, but only on a Terminal Services connection to a PC supplied for that purpose; not on the live database but on an offline copy; and no access to the server ever again; and decisions about the direction of development would be handled by a hierarchy of decision-makers from the CEO to the outside consultant to the IT Director, and I was not even on the list at all).
So I figures: THEY brought up this undefined alternative option called a “fair parting”. Are they saying they will quit fucking around with trying to get me to quit or find excuse to fire me and will play FAIR with me and give me a layoff? Or maybe I am being uncharitable, maybe they are scraping the barrel for things they think they could use me for although they do not really want or need me (obviously, having disconnected me from everything and they’re ditching the database environment that I work in), but if I don’t care for that pathetic non-role role they’ll be FAIR and lay me off and perhaps throw in some severance considerations, especially if their bylaws say they’ve got to for professionals or something like that?
So I very carefully reply: “After giving your offer thorough consideration, I am opting for your alternative offer of a fair parting”.
Does that in any way read to you as “I quit”?
Next day, having not heard anything, I write a second email asking them to delineate the specifics of their offer of a “fair parting”.
The CEO reponds: the accountant will reply to you with what you need to know and THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESIGNATION
excuse me?
Accountant writes shortly after: “Just to confirm, YOU are resigning from Our Company effective 2/2/09…”
So I confer with an attorney (not for the first time, dont’ look at me that way, I’m not stoopid. I tried to reach same attorney during deadline-window of 2 hrs but attorney’s office did not call back before noon deadline…). Attorney says clarify in writing you did not quit, and ask again for terms of ‘fair parting’. So I do so.
CEO’s admin assistant emails me: the CEO would like to call you to discuss this. I say: I’d really like to have a response in writing. I get an email shortly after that: The CEO declines your request.
So I go file for unemployment benefits.
I get one week’s pay then a notice from Dept of Labor that my former employer is claiming that I was not laid off, I quit!
FINAL CHAPTER:
I reply to Dept of Labor inquiries and include emails and whatnot correspondences and explain that NO, I did NOT quit, etc.
Department of Labor initially rules against me, saying that although the “new job” being offered is indeed different from the capacity in which I had been working, that insofar as the organization offered me a job and it WAS appropriate to my skills and whatnot, and was [dunno where they got THIS from] for the same pay, my failure to say “yes” to the new job offer constitutes “a quit”.
So I request a hearing and today was the date of my hearing.
Employer did not show up or phone in or send someone to represent them.
So now I wait…
While I think they certainly treated you bad, I hate to say it but “fair parting” could certainly be interpreted by me as I quit just as much as You’re fired. Your story and details leans it more towards You’re fired, but not totally IMO.
Still hope you get the good deal because at best they were inept in how they handled it and at worst were jerks.
Well, the company certainly sound like a bunch of dicks.
You know, in some ways it sort of does.
I mean, as i said, the people at the company sound like assholes, but their offer basically boiled down to: If you still want a job with us at your old salary, you’ve got it. The only difference will be that your responsibilities have changed from A, B, C to X, Y, Z.
You might not think the new responsibilities are appropriate for your level of expertise and experience, but the fact is that the job was still a developer job, and was still paying the same amount as before.
Right here, i would have accepted the telephone call, and i would have recorded it.
Both New York, where you are, and Minnesota, where the company is, are one-party consent states, meaning that you can record your telephone conversations without the consent of the person on the other end of the line.
Again, if you had posed this situation to me as a hypothetical, and asked me whether “quit” was the correct term to describe what you did, i probably would have said yes.
I’m sorry this happened to you, and i’ll be quite happy if you get your unemployment benefits back. I also think the company acted pretty dubiously, from a moral and ethical point of view. But in the end all they really did was change you job description; companies do this to people all the time.
I could see how someone might interpret the original reply as “I choose not to work for you” (although why would an employer be offering the option of quitting in the process of telling someone how they will be working from now on? “Or, should that not appeal to you, you may quit your job” ?!??). But I then followed up on that with a request for them to detail the specifics of their offer of a “fair parting”. WHAT, they’re sitting there reading that and thinking I’m asking “Can you go over this ‘I quit’ thing again so that I am clear on the whole ‘I quit’ scenario?” C’mon. If they read it that way the first time, by the time my second email landed it should have been pretty clear that I had understood them to be offering something TO me called a “fair parting”.
Aside from that, after they replied with that “thanks for your resignation” stuff I explicitly replied with “I did NOT quit, you offered fair parting as one of two options. I ask you once again to explain what my options are”.
They wanted me gone. When you wish to retain an employee, you don’t disable their email, their instant messenger, and all other access to the system and ask them to mail in their cell phone. They chose to interpret what I said as “I am quitting” because they were determined that sooner or later, dammit, I was gonna quit.
What’s “fair” about “I shall graciously allow you to quit your job”?
Wow, AHunter3, thanks for sharing your story. It sounds extremely obvious that you were laid off and those scumbags screwed you over big time. I can totally sympathize, as a similar thing happened to me.
Here is an interesting related article: More Employers Fight Unemployment Benefits:
Please let us know how it turns out!
Actually, I was coming back in to apologize to mhendo and billfish. I’m in an argumentative mood, and I hope I convinced the judge… but you folks aren’t the enemy and I didn’t mean to snap at you.
But nice to hear that someone else has the same take on it that I do! (Thanks, nyctea scandiaca!) hey I just realized there’s an extra “a” in your screen name that I’ve been missing, I always read it as “nyctea scandica”…
No need to apologize. As i said, i think the company acted like dicks. Also, i think there should be severe penalties for employers who try to screw over their former employees on unemployment benefits. There should also, i think, be much more effort made to discourage employers from doing the sort of thing they did to you, i.e., essentially try to make your life so difficult that you won’t want to stay with the company. If the country is going to have “at will” employment laws, where you can basically be laid off for any reason, they should have more safeguards to stop employers from working the system and fucking over their former employees.
I must say, i just can’t imagine the mindset of someone who would lay a worker off and then actually go out of his way to make sure the worker can’t receive unemployment. The cruelty and selfishness of such an act is difficult to even imagine.
I guess my question to you is: if you had accepted their offer to work under the new terms and conditions, what do you think would have happened next? would they have continued to pay you 70 grand to do very little, and to have no responsibilities? Or would they have gone to the next phase, and tried something new to force you out?
It’s hard to know for sure… their behavior has not merely been disgusting, it’s been freakishly incomprehensible. (Hey, when you leave the schizophrenic guy blinking in bewilderment, you’ve entered a category of weird unto yourself).
I think they would have simply made the things asked of me yet worse to see if they could get me to quit, and if I still didn’t, concocted a reason why I had acted in a “fired-with-cause-worthy” manner.
Best case scenario was that they would have kept me on until they got the Ruby-based system up and running and then finally laid me off.
That’s hard for me to visualize. They sure as hell were not acting like a company that wanted to keep me on, even for “the remaining FileMaker days”. They hired an outside guy at consultant rates (90-120 dollars per hour, a hell of a lot more than my 70K annual rate). And they still had my junior developer (underestimated and sufficiently skilled to run the whole thing, if she were asked to). Speaking of whom, they had asked her to read up on Ruby on Rails, something they never asked me to do. I just don’t see it. I was a high-wage FileMaker person that they decided they did not need.
If I had it to do over, I would simply ignore the email. They could not demonstrate that I had ever received it. (No way to backcheck since it was my personal email account). I could screen my calls and not take any of their calls, and just wait until they finally quit paying a salary and THEN claim I’d been laid off. They could hardly fire me “with cause” for being damn difficult to communicate with under the circumstances!
Well, if I were the judge, I’d conclude that this was the work equivalent of a constructive eviction. They didn’t say “You’re terminated.” but they left you no other choice but to leave.
Personally, I would have responded to their email, but I would have never said that I agreed to option b) fair parting. Because it’s very transparent that they were luring me into saying the magical words, “I quit” which may very well absolve them of paying you UB.
Anyway, I’m glad that not every company is run by such people and wish you luck getting what is due you.
No, offense taken here.
Hope it works out for you !
Okay, I read the “fair parting” thing to be that they would offer some sort of severance, up front, prior to your making a decision one way or the other. If it was enough to satisfy you (offer you some cushion to live off until you found a new gig), then you’d consider the relationship severed. Otherwise, you could have said no thanks, I’ll say on in the new capacity (and of course you’d be looking for a new gig). To me, they didn’t offer enough detail to consider it a clear cut parting of the ways. It was Option A or Option B but the true option wasn’t laid out.