You don't "accept someone's resignation" and then add terms to it and actually "resign" them a little sooner than they were going to resign.
That's called firing.
That's called firing.
> when someone gives 2 weeks notice.
But she didn't give 2 weeks notice. This seems to be the key detail.
If you give an employer an ultimatum and they don't want to give in to your demands then is that giving notice or quitting on the spot or something else? Should her managers/google legal have waited for her to tell them when exactly she was going to leave?
Yes, if they wanted her to resign they should have waited for her to resign rather than fire her. If they fired her, seems odd to call it a resignation.
As an employee, I agree, it is twisted to call it a resignation.
As an employer, of course that's exactly what they'd do with any employee who says "I quit, I'll tell you exactly when" and then proceeds to blast out a disruptive email.
You cannot file for unemployment aid if you resign or are terminated for cause. You can only get assistance if your termination is the result of your position being eliminated, otherwise known as a reduction in force. This is valid in California and I believe true in every other state in the US.
> Frequently after notice of a quit, layoff, or discharge has been given, either the claimant or the employer will act to accelerate the separation. Such action can alter the character of the separation.
https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm
I don't really think unemployment is relevant in this case. I am interested in whether she technically quit or resigned though.
Let you continue to have access to company resources? My expectations are they would immediately terminate access to all company resources, pay me 2 weeks, send me a letter wishing me good luck on my future endeavors, and send an email to my co-workers saying I resigned.
Now later I might think, shoot maybe I shouldn't have threatened to quit if they didn't meet my demands because I really liked my job. But I don't think we should pretend this isn't exactly what 95% of all corporations would do in a similar situation.
I think the wishing of luck was circumvented by the media firestorm. Her first tweet was about losing corporate access which is usually the first thing H.R. does once a decision has been made.
The employee remains employed in your scenario. Just without duties or access. Terminating employment immediately and not saying anything about severance implies not paying.