Hacker News Reader

Comment by CoolGuySteve | Hacker News Reader

"In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge or constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is, in effect, a termination. For example, when an employer places extraordinary and unreasonable work demands on an employee to obtain their resignation, this can constitute a constructive dismissal. "

View on HN

That matters when employees have contracts promising termination only with cause. But these employees are likely all at-will; they can be fired for having the wrong hair cut.

Constructive dismissals aren’t necessarily illegal, they’re just not resignations. A “resignation” that is actually a constructive dismissal would usually qualify that employee for any legal benefits they’d receive as a fired employee, like unemployment.

This is unrelated to “with Cause” conditions in employment contracts. This is about qualifying for unemployment and other benefits.

Constructive dismissal isn't about whether it's legal or not to do it. It is, however, relevant to things like unemployment benefits—my wife, for instance, had her job changed on her just as the lockdowns were beginning, to something she had already made it very clear she was adamantly unwilling to do (and this was a complete change in title, responsibilities, department, the whole works), and after she had been instrumental in some reports that were pretty critical of the administration and (indirectly) supportive of unionization. She quit, and had no trouble (at least, no more than usual) getting the state to agree she deserved unemployment.

No, I live in an at-will state, you can absolutely file for constructive dismissal. And SHOULD. If you can do your job remotely, have been doing your job remotely, and the company wants to end that? Then the company absolutely needs to be challenged and burdened with showing proof as to why returning to the office is necessary when it does create an unreasonable burden on the employee.

For anyone who says this isn't an unreasonable burden, what if you live in a different state? Or in a lower cost-of-living? Or have a home/family life built around a position working remotely that you have been functioning in perfectly fine for three, four, five plus years?

In Physical Security if your position requires body armor, the company is legally admitting it's a dangerous life-threatening position & denying a request for body armor is a legal attestation that the job should not be considered dangerous in the course of day to day work.

Much the same way, the company is now admitting that onsite work for the position is somehow more necessary then working remotely. Challenge these companies.

If they won a case for constructive dismissal, what do you think they would win?

their self respect?

Unemployment benefits. Possibly a position retained remotely if it progresses to legal arbitration. But more importantly, precedent for other workers & the hit to unemployment insurance for the company. Obviously with Amazon's size its different but that unemployment insurance cost matters to most companies.

Thats a fair point if the employee thinks they will be using it.

Why would there be legal arbitration? They already have the right to terminate you without cause. At best, wouldn't you be "winning" the recognition that they're simply RIF'ing you?

Virtually everybody lives in an at-will state. The definition of an at-will state is one in which your employer doesn't need any reason to fire you. How does the constructive dismissal claim work? Is it your belief that they could fire you immediately if they wanted to, but have somehow, despite the huge legal department, blundered into the one way they can't fire you?

If this is just about unemployment benefits, sure: but you're eligible for unemployment benefits when you're RIF'd, too. You don't have to be constructively terminated to be eligible, just not fired for cause --- which is what termination in the ordinary course is.

My understanding is you can't get unemployment for quitting, though? Is that not accurate?

If the whole thing about constructive termination is that they're doing this "voluntary resignation" thing to avoid unemployment benefits, then this makes sense. I had the initial impression it was about avoiding having to relocate, but it looks like I misconstrued.

I have the impression a lot of folks just like yelling at companies. As such, I have no doubt your initial impression is a large part of the discourse.

That said, I think it does meaningfully impact the people that are getting terminated. I'm willing to think the company isn't trying to deny unemployment, but if it does have that implication, this is very wrong.

I agree with you. I, too, as too knee-jerk here. Thanks for spelling it out!

> Virtually everybody lives in an at-will state.

Every state but, for some reason, Montana.

Montana isn't especially pro-worker, either -- it's a staunchly conservative state -- it's just they didn't adopt many of the same statutes and wordings as the at-will states.

Ya, I don’t see Amazon getting out of unemployment in this case. But they can fire at will employees, even if their unemployment premiums will go up as a result, they don’t have to worry about lawsuits otherwise. It still sucks for the employee being dismissed even if they qualify for unemployment.

I'm a remote worker who would quit before returning to the office. But even so I can't interpret a requirement to be non-remote as "a hostile work environment", "extraordinary", or "unreasonable". But yes, it does look more like a termination than a voluntary resignation.

> But even so I can't interpret a requirement to be non-remote as "a hostile work environment", "extraordinary", or "unreasonable". But yes, it does look more like a termination than a voluntary resignation.

I think a unilateral change to the employment contract that substantially changes the character of the work (from fully remote to in-person) could fairly easily be described as 'unreasonable', just as if your employer decided to cut your salary in half.

The fate of any potential case would probably come down to the reasonable expectations of the parties. If there was a common understanding that remote work was permanent, then a unilateral change would be unreasonable; if the remote work was time-limited, probationary, or a trial, then the change might be reasonable even if undesired.

> I think a unilateral change to the employment contract

These employees do not have employment contracts.

It sounds nit-picky if you’re unfamiliar with the law, but it’s very important that companies avoid giving the suggestion that there is an “employment contract”

Regardless, this is a company-wide policy change, not an action against an individual.

Companies close offices, shutter departments, and pull out of regions while giving employees to the opportunity to relocate all the time. This is well-trodden territory and it’s not constructive dismissal against an individual.

The actual threashold is “a meaningful change in your work requirements” and there is, I believe, plenty of case law to establish that this includes a significant change to your worksite location.

If you live 5 min from your office, maybe you can’t use this excuse. But if you are committing 45+ min each way, or have since moved out of state…

Yeah there is a lot of caselaw here.

It will depend to some degree on the state, though.

I'm guessing that AMZN also assumed that many would either move, or just eat the dismissal, and the cost of paying out those who fight it is still less than just giving unemployment to everyone. At least I hope they made those projections...

So to give some insight, I've been working as a virtual employee for 6 years. I've never been to an actual office location and don't live near one. Every offer/contact I've had has been for virtual location. In my employee portal it's always listed virtual as my location. With that said, we're now being forced to relocate to wherever our senior leadership (directors etc), people we've never met or spoken to, work out of. For example, if your leadership works out of Seattle, that's where you need to be. Only options are relocate or voluntarily resign. No severance. And it appears no unemployment options. I have no words to be honest and would genuinely appreciate advice.

If they did this to a single employee without good reason, that employee might have a case.

If they institute a company-wide policy and apply it by default to everyone, an individual could not argue that the company constructively dismissed them.

Case to sue for what? Constructive dismissal is legal

Reply on news.ycombinator.com