Hacker News Reader

Comment by scott00 | Hacker News Reader

Unemployment benefits are likely to be substantially less than wages. In Massachusetts, unemployment benefits are about 50% of wages, with a cap of $795 per week (which works out to an annualized rate of $41,340/year). So the employee is probably in worse financial shape than they expected to be.

IMO, the issue here isn't wrongful termination, it's providing false information to the state. Firing someone because they intend to resign in the future is probably legal, but it doesn't change the fact that they were fired. It sounds like the employer reported that they resigned, which simply isn't true.

View on HN

There’s no question that unemployment benefits are worse for that employee than their full employment benefits, and that extended unemployment benefits are better for the employee than them ending on January 1.

I just don’t think that’s a sufficient argument for saying that the employee is entitled to those things legally or ethically.

From a legal standpoint, the relevant language is "no benefits shall be paid to an individual under this chapter for... the period of unemployment... after the individual has left work (1) voluntarily..."[1]. I hope we can agree the employee did not leave voluntarily. There is no statutory language I could find that makes the fact that the employee intended to leave at some point after the date of actual separation relevant to the eligibility for benefits.

Ethically, the thing I have the biggest problem with is the employer characterizing the circumstances of the separation as anything other than a firing on November 1st. Effectively they are trying to say they fired the person on November 1st, then they rehired that person on January 1st, at which point they immediately resigned. I just don't think that's an accurate description of the circumstances.

[1] Massachussetts General Law Chapter 151A, Section 25, preamble and paragraph e: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Ch...

It's also entirely possible that the company could have worked to retain the employee. This happens all the time. The only time it matters is if the employee quits on the spot or was given notice of termination. Notice of intent to quit is not quitting.

I've in fact quit a company in Massachusetts before when I was younger because I was falsely accused of theft. They provided me unemployment which I refused on principle. Turned out the manager who accused me was the one stealing. Karma paid her a visit in that she was stabbed during a robbery on the shift she had to cover because of me leaving (she was fine with stitches). After this is when she was caught. So fun times all around.

Due to the difference between pay and unemployment benefits, the employee still has less money at the date when they would have resigned and they may have been counting on that money to see them through the job search.

During the two months after they gave notice, the employee might have intended to send out applications in the evenings. Since there is often a significant lead time between submitting an application and hearing back, the employee may have been counting on the two months of employment to burn some of that wait.

Hiring is probably also cyclic. For example, between Thanksgiving and New Years is probably not a very productive time to be looking for jobs. The employee may have been counting on the two months before their resignation date to get them through one of these slow periods.

The post said they were fired without cause. I don't know about Massachusetts but in right to work states, people can be fired without a reason or a notice period, and it is up to the person to prove there was a reason that is illegal.

> and it is up to the person to prove there was a reason that is illegal.

And the company has the money, legal team, and power.

And the person has, well, less money, and no legal team, and low/no power.

And that's why all layoffs and firings need to include why. There shouldn't be any of this without-reason dismissals.

In Massachusetts you automatically get unemployed benefits unless the employer files paperwork for termination due to cause. The de facto assumption is that the employee will receive unemployment benefits up until the date that those benefits are exhausted. The only way that this stopped was if the employer started that the employee quit or that they were terminated for cause, neither of which sounds true in this case as terminating someone for an intention to quit is not cause. Obviously IANAL but as far as I can tell the employee is entitled to unemployment benefits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com