I was working for a small cpa firm with a single owner as an office manager. Yesterday, on my 89th day, I was told that I was getting fired. The reason that was given to me was that I did not get fingerprinted to be registered as an investment assistant. Here are the facts:

It was never discussed with me upon my hiring that he would like for me to be registered as an investment assistant. He asked me to get fingerprinted a few weeks in. But at the time, he also said that it was not urgent because we were going to be swamped with tax work.

Our complete focus was on tax work up until April 15th, after which our immediate focus and last real important deadline was April 30th for our clients payroll taxes.

He has very little investment work and my registration as an investment advisor up until that point was absolutely not needed.

I am a graduate of a top ranking business school and had significant work experience, yet I was grossly underpaid ($14/hr), compared to past earnings as I was told that I would receive a bonus after tax season which bring that around to $21/hr (which I never received). Also, we had discussed long term plans of me buying out his practice once I was licensed as a CPA which is why I took the lower pay.

We never signed ANY contract when I began working and still had no contract in place, nor was any probationary period verbally discussed.

I did my job well and never heard a single complaint from him or heard him voice any displeasure of my work at any point in time, Nor was the fingerprint issue discussed as fireable offense or discussed as an urgent issue. On the contrary, it was downplayed often as when I would attempt to discuss his investment business, his response was routinely "we'll worry about that after April 30th."

I constantly asked him to give me greater responsibilities or asked him what I should prioritize and his response was always "I'll discuss that with you later."

I know I was let go on the 89th day to avoid him paying unemployment and I have suspicion that he always intended to have me work through tax season and then let me go after the April 30th deadline. The timing is to coincidental that I was hired on Feb 3rd and the 89th day was the day after our last major deadline. Is there a case for me to file a wrongfull termination claim so I could collect a bonus I should have received? If nothing else, reveal to him my intentions to file a civil suit unless he were to pay me severance?
Please help!

I know I was let go on the 89th day to avoid him paying unemploymen...t Is there a case for me to file a wrongfull termination claim so I could collect a bonus I should have received? If nothing else, reveal to him my intentions to file a civil suit unless he were to pay me severance?Hello un:

Sorry for your troubles. However, your high powered business school SHOULD have taught you to get stuff IN writing... Without it, you have no recourse... You are an "at will" employee, who can be fired for any reason at all or no reason whatsoever...

I don't believe there's a 90 day period regarding your unemployment compensation, though... I'd certainly apply.

excon

I know that I'm an "at will" employee and my recourse is limited. To be honest, I'm almost certain that I don't have a case. However, what I am hoping is that once he is facing the threat of a civil suit, he will realize that fighting the case would cost twice as much in legal fees then it would to just pay me a small severance. I am stronly considering calling him today and letting him know of my intention to file a suit. Even if he knows I don't have a case, he'd still have to hire legal representation to fight it.

Actually, I think you MAY have a case here. I agree the nature of the business and the timing of his actions DO make it suspect that he hired you only to see him through tax season. I think a judge and, especially, a jury would see it that way as well.

How much of a bonus where you expecting? If its enough to use small claims court, then I would file.

I was expecting a bonus around $2000 to $5000 in May and a similar one at year-end. Honestly, all I want is one month's severance, which really isn't that much. I'm not greedy or looking to break the bank. I have a wife and a family and need to pay bills now. I had no warning and was left with my pants down.

Is this something that I can file in small-claims court? What do you think his legal cost would be to fight a small-claims suit?

I am stronly considering calling him today and letting him know of my intention to file a suit. Even if he knows I don't have a case, he'd still have to hire legal representation to fight it.Hello again, un:

Oh, I'm all for the intimidation tactics. I think the guy is a jerk and if you can get something from him, go for it. But, he MIGHT know his rights, and he MIGHT know that defending a case in small claims court is cheap and easy. No, he does NOT need legal representation there.

So, if you're going to INTIMIDATE him, don't try it with small claims court. That court, by its very nature, is UN-intimidating.

excon

And if you're going to intimidate him, don't warn him first by phone.

Sorry, Scott, but I don't see a case here - it's employment at will. I no longer need your services, you are gone. My accountant goes through personnel every year at tax time. It's part of the business (unfortunately, but I would think people in that business are aware of the facts of tax time = employment).

Now, if there's an agreement to pay severance OR commission OR something else, well, then I see a case. I am troubled that the top ranking school didn't advise OP (as Excon said) to get it in writing. Also, OP is complaining about the low pay - that's another issue.

I also see the OP questioning and asking and pushing and perhaps the employer got tired of asking questions. Not saying it's fair but it's a tough economy.

Can't OP collect Unemployment from his previous employer?

As far as buying the business or anything else - I see the Court questioning why the agreement wasn't in writing. Is it puffery? Perhaps. Is it outright lying? Perhaps. Is it a failure to have a meeting of the minds? Most probably.

If there was a requirement that the OP be fingerprinted and the OP was NOT fingerprinted (for whatever reason) I see the OP breaking the contract (if the Court sees a contract), not the employer. Again - if.

I know that I'm an "at will" employee and my recourse is limited. To be honest, I'm almost certain that I don't have a case. However, ...
Even if he knows I don't have a case, he'd still have to hire legal representation to fight it.

It would be unethical for an attorney to take your case under these circumstances. There are mechanisms in place to punish attorneys who breach ethics.

And it would be unethical for you to do it yourself in small claims court. If it comes out you knew you didn't have a case and were suing solely as a nuisance suit, and if I were the judge, I would sanction you with a punative award.

It was unethical for him to fire me the way he did. To string me along and have me pass on a better paying job because I had already made a commitment to him. It was unethical for him to praise my work and give me a false impression that my employment was secure when it clearly wasn't. It was unethical for him to conveniently time my hiring and firing around his busy time and prevent me from collecting any benefits that I would be due after 90 days. If he needed a temp, then he should have hired a temp, but then again a temp would probably not put forth the effort I did because they wouldn't have falsely assumed there were long-term goals to work towards.

The only reason I say that I know I probably don't have a claim, is because I made a gross mistake by believing he was a man of his word and did not get anything in writing. I have owned a successful business before and have had employees work for me. I never once bs'ed them when I hired them or treated them unfairly when I fired them.

And it's worth while noting that one of the reasons I didn't ask for anything in writing is because he told me on a few occaisions that he was considering creating a new position which would pay more and would slate me for that position. He first mentioned this the day I was hired and kept putting it off because we needed to get through tax season before he had time for this matter.

Essentially you're telling me that I should just bend over for this guy, let him have his fun and walk away with a smile because it's "unethical" to pursue what's "ethically" do to me.

It was unethical for him to fire me the way he did. ...

I'm sorry for your predicament. But you probably know the old saying:

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

It would be unethical for an attorney to take your case under these circumstances. There are mechanisms in place to punish attorneys who breach ethics.

And it would be unethical for you to do it yourself in small claims court. If it comes out you knew you didn't have a case and were suing solely as a nuisance suit, and if I were the judge, I would sanction you with a punative award.


Absolutely and you caught what I hadn't even thought about.

All good points - and the Courts are getting tough on people who file frivilous lawsuits in my area (including Small Claims Court).

Essentially you're telling me that I should just bend over for this guy, let him have his fun and walk away with a smile because it's "unethical" to pursue what's "ethically" do to me.


You asked about the law, your options, what you can do. You've gotten several legal opinons - all pretty much the same. If you don't believe "us" start calling Attorneys or go immediately to Small Claims Court and file. Come back and tell "us" the result.

If you want to talk ethics, post on some other board, not the law board. We don't argue ethics here. We post and discuss the law.

And if you didn't bother to get it in writing and that allowed him to bend you over, have his fun and walk away with a smile... whose fault is that? The Courts don't and can't enforce ethics. They can enforce stupidity.

Next time get it in writing.

And why can't you collect unemployment benefits through your previous employment?

Hello lawyer:

The OP has a question whether verbal representations made to him are enforceable. They may, or may not be. To suggest, however, that he's ethically challenged simply because he wants a judge to rule on the issue, is uncalled for, and not factually correct. In fact, if he could PROVE his allegations (and who says he can't), he may very well prevail.

excon

Hello lawyer:

The OP has a question whether verbal representations made to him are enforceable. They may, or may not be. To suggest, however, that he's ethically challenged simply because he wants a judge to rule on the issue, is uncalled for, and not factually correct. In fact, if he could PROVE his allegations (and who says he can't), he may very well prevail.

excon


"AK" can speak for himself; however, it is unethical for an Attorney to take a case simply to intimidate the other party, knowing there is no cause of action. I believe that is what is being addressed here. The "I can't win but it'll cost him money to fight me" line is the trigger here.

If OP is retaining counsel in order to obtain wages and benefits, that's a whole different story.

And, again - I find that fingerprinting was a job requirement. OP didn't get fingerprinted in the first 89 days of his employment. I don't see that the employer had an obligation to keep asking. OP is certainly clear on that requirement now.

Of course, OP lost me with his whole "bend over and enjoy it" philosophy/defense. I see the frustration. I just don't get the attitude. I'd STILL like to know why OP can't collect based on previous employment.

And now I'll step back and let you and "AK" discuss this between you. Of course, the OP has drifted off -

Hello Judy:

I don't think he'll win. You don't think he'll win. AK doesn't think he'll win. Hell, even the OP doesn't think he'll win. Guess what? He STILL could win. Who knows if his employer, when put under oath, might just tell the truth? Who knows if he doesn't have notes of his promises? Who knows if some other employee didn't hear the representations made to the OP?

All I'm saying, is lots of things could happen between NOW and time for court. I agree, the motives behind the threat are intimidation, however, that's because he doesn't believe he has a good legal case, and we've supported that belief. He ISN'T a lawyer. That's why he's here. It also doesn't mean that he sincerely believes that the representations made to him are enforceable.

Consequently, I think the ethics charge is out of line.

excon

Understand your point of view.

Now it's between you and AK and I'll be standing over here -

I'm not able to collect insurance through my past employer because I was a full-time graduate student in 09 and have not worked since 08. Part of the problem with the judicial system is that it does not view ethics and law as one and the same. If that was the case, insurance companies wouldn't be able to get out of paying claims to victims of circumstances who were misled.

Now I'm not saying that I'm a victim in this matter, I understand that the mistake to not obtain the contract in writing was my mistake, which is why I don't feel like I can win in court. But I don't know if verbal commitments are enforceable and if they are then I certainly do have a case. Excuse me for being a little snippy, it's obviously not directed at anyone here but I am certainly frustrated that last week I was told I'm doing a good job and to stay on top of things because I have a real future here and a week later I'm fired. I'm very frustrated that someone I held up my end of the bargain for possibly pre-meditated placing me in a very tough bind.

As far as the intimidation tatic is concerned, it's pretty common place in legal matters isn't it? Why do parties counter sue? What's wrong with creating leverage. I'm not at all extoring or blackmailing anyone. I am happy to let the judicial system decide and that's up to him but that's probably not in my best interest and it probably isn't in his best interest. And when you're talking about Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants etc. ethics do matter because that is part of their designation; to perform their trait in an ethical manner. Regardless what the law states.

I'm not able to collect insurance through my past employer because I was a full-time graduate student in 09 and have not worked since 08. Part of the problem with the judicial system is that it does not view ethics and law as one and the same. If that was the case, insurance companies wouldn't be able to get out of paying claims to victims of circumstances who were misled.

Now I'm not saying that I'm a victim in this matter, I understand that the mistake to not obtain the contract in writing was my mistake, which is why I don't feel like I can win in court. But I don't know if verbal commitments are enforceable and if they are then I certainly do have a case. Excuse me for being a little snippy, it's obviously not directed at anyone here but I am certainly frustrated that last week I was told I'm doing a good job and to stay on top of things because I have a real future here and a week later I'm fired. I'm very frustrated that someone I held up my end of the bargain for possibly pre-meditated placing me in a very tough bind.

As far as the intimidation tatic is concerned, it's pretty common place in legal matters isn't it? Why do parties counter sue? Whats wrong with creating leverage. I'm not at all extoring or blackmailing anyone. I am happy to let the judicial system decide and that's up to him but that's probably not in my best interest and it probably isn't in his best interest. And when you're talking about Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants etc., ethics do matter because that is part of their designation; to perform their trait in an ethical manner. Regardless what the law states.


Insurance companies "get out of" paying "victims" who were "misled"? What insurance companies, what victims and who was misled? I have no idea what you are talking about - and I'm a liability investigator. What does that have to do with your problem? Again - you are arguing morals, not law.

No, intimidation is NOT commonplace in legal matters. Good argument is, yes. Intimidation, no.

Again - you are confusing moral issues and the law. If you are arguing the morals of your ex-employer, report him to "his" licensing board.

Yes, verbal agreements are admissible and can win a lawsuit. A Judge will listen to both sides of this and determine which story makes the most sense, who is the most reasonable. Again - I think an argument can be made that you broke contract by not getting fingerprinted. At that point all arrangements were off.

A Judge will look at what benefit there would be to you if you are telling the truth, what benefit there would be to your ex-employer if you are telling the truth, what is most likely to be the truth - your version or his, what is most realistic, what is most plausible.

I'm out of this argument - you either won't or can't hear what I'm saying.

Sue your employer and let us know how this works out. I'm tired of defending the law and how it works. Post this on some other thread and discuss the moral issues.

You already have been told the law.

First, you don't want to sue for severance, because you are not legally entitled to severance. The only cause of action you have is that he terminated you rather than pay a promised bonus. That is a valid cause of action, despite the at will employment issue. The problem is going to be proving you were promised the bonus.

AK and Judy are right but I still think you have a valid cause of action that negates some of their arguments. Will you win? I don't know, but I think its enough of a possibility to pursue it.

Best advice you could get is talk to an attorney who specializes in employment law. I see what might be a case, but that's general legal principles not specific case law in your jurisdiction.

Best advice you could get is talk to an attorney who specializes in employment law. I see what might be a case, but thats general legal principles not specific case law in your jurisdiction.


This has been answered in detail by people in the legal profession - where do you see "general legal principles" fitting into this picture?

I'm confused by this entire sentence which makes little sense.

Best advice you could get is talk to an attorney who specializes in employment law. I see what might be a case, but thats general legal principles not specific case law in your jurisdiction.

I'm a bit confused, are you an RN or a lawyer?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/medications/should-child-meds-adhd-taken-off-them-weekends-469933-post2346839.html#post2346839

I'm a bit confused, are you an RN or a lawyer?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/medications/should-child-meds-adhd-taken-off-them-weekends-469933-post2346839.html#post2346839


My vote is Nurse based on this (and other) legal advice - https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/criminal-law/question-about-perjury-469289.html#

I am an RN finishing up law school. So I am not an attorney yet, and certainly not an attorney in whatever jurisdiction the OP is in.

If you are in law school I don't understand your consistently incorrect legal advice.

I also don't know what this means, asked for clarification and have not received it. "It makes little sense? Well let me explain, there are general legal principals that are general but not followed in every jurisdiction, then each state has its own specific laws that are very different depending on which state the claim is in. So, wh - "

My first clue was your misuse of the word "principal."

In law school I'm sure you are accustomed to defending your position (often just for sport) and so I would like an answer.

Im also surprised that a fledgling Attorney does not know how to read the rules of the site concerning agree or disagree.

Quite correct, I had a typo, I should have said principle and not principal (this semester's agency law cramming coming through I am afraid).

If my answer was not clear enough, I shall try again. All law is based on common law principles. These are the basic foundations, but not the rule of law (i.e.: statutes) in each jurisdiction. Therefore, the person should be talking to an attorney that is admitted to the bar (and familiar with the specific statutes) in that jurisdiction.

If that doesn't answer your question, perhaps you could rephrase it--as I am clearly not understanding what you are looking for?

We're on the same page - I think the hang up is whether this is employment at will. I don't know of a State which will force an at will employer to retain an employee for even one day.

Of course, you and I care and OP has wandered off.

Actually, most states have a "bad faith" exception to the "at will" rule (burden shifting).

If the employee can show that the termination was for bad faith, as potentially here where the employer terminated the employee in order to save paying a bonus or commission that would be due would generally constitute "bad faith." Of course, that's dependent on each state's statutory scheme.

Yup, wandered off...

Do you have a link regarding the agree/disagree button? The FAQ simply had a general discussion that said if you agree/disagree click that and comment...

Actually, most states have a "bad faith" exception to the "at will" rule (burden shifting).

If the employee can show that the termination was for bad faith, as potentially here where the employer terminated the employee in order to save paying a bonus or commission that would be due would generally constitute "bad faith." Of course, thats dependent on each state's statutory scheme.

yup, wandered off....Hello again, ad:

I like where you wandered to. Let's talk about it since the OP's gone.

In the instant case, the OP thinks his employer fired him on the 89th day to avoid paying un-employment insurance. As I suggested in post #2 above, I don't think there's an 89 day free pass in terms of unemployment, and until proven otherwise, I'm sticking to it.

In ANY case, he was not let go to avoid paying a commission or bonus as you suggested. If one were owed, it would be covered under contract law, and not by some exception to the at will provision. Even IF he was let go to avoid paying the unemployment insurance, the employer made NO representations that he would pay it. Therefore, the OP should have NO expectation that he would.

I'm simply suggesting that an exception to employment "at will" for bad faith, seems to be covered already by contract law - even criminal law.

But, I'm only an exconvict. Never went to law school myself...

excon

I was not looking so much to the unemployment part of his comment, where his focus was, but to his earlier comment stating:

"I am a graduate of a top ranking business school and had significant work experience, yet I was grossly underpaid ($14/hr), compared to past earnings as I was told that I would receive a bonus after tax season which bring that around to $21/hr (which I never received)."

Which I agree would be a contract and be covered by contract law, however it would also provide the requisite bad faith that certain jurisdictions require to over rule the "at will" provision.
See Fortune v. National Cash Register Co. 373 Mass. 96, (1977).

Thanks, I plan on it

Thanks, I plan on it


And the requirement that he be fingerprinted as part of the overall contract?

There either was a total meeting of the minds or there wasn't. You can't pick and chose which wording and provisions and "understandings" apply.

I find OP breached the contract by failing to be fingerprinted.

Hopefully OP will come back and inform us.

I remember the Fortune case - that referred to a WRITTEN employment contact - something which is not at play here. First the OP has to overcome the lack of a contract; then he has to overcome whether there was a meeting of the minds and an oral contract. Then there's the problem of bad economy - can he prove there were jobs in the $21 range with his qualifications and lack of CPA designation? Or is it going to come down to he took whatever job he could get and kept his fingers crossed? Then, if there was a contract, he didn't meet the terms - fingerprinting.

I think you are looking at this in a very simplistic way and it's NOT a simplistic matter.

Maybe now that OP has more or less been answered this is a good topic for a discussion board, complete with some legal research and citations.

Judy, written or oral a contract is a contract (unless of course the statute of frauds applies).

Also, breach of contract is one issue, but the underlying basis of any contract is the covenent of good faith. I don't believe this is simple at all... straight contract law is simple, you breach or not you have a defense or you don't. Agency which I think is the OP's best argument beyond the contract, is that if the termination was in bad faith then the termination is disallowed by the court and thus (if the bonus was due on day 90) then the employee gets his bonus. I agree that there is a difference in proving whether the contract existed between a written or oral contract, butt hats an issue of fact not of law which at least gets him to the jury. Further, whether the issue of fingerprinting and licensure was part and parcel of the contract would be something for the finder of fact as well, I would look at the other employees at the firm and see if they were terminated for the same failure to be licensed. I think a factfinder would hold that as strong evidence of good/bad faith.

We're going to go 'round and 'round. I don't think OP can make a convincing argument to a Jury. I think the case you cited is not at point - OP does not need an interpretation of a written contract.

I see no indication (and maybe I'm missing it) that he would be paid a bonus on the 90th day. It thought that that was an open-ended "deal." I also find that the bonus was very nebulous - based on performance? New clients? Whether it rained in April?

As far as fingerprinting being part of the "contract" - it doesn't matter what the employer required of other employees. What matters is the OP's agreement with the employer.

I can work for someone who promises me the moon. That doesn't mean you are entitled to the moon. We each make a separate deal.

I find the initial determination has to be whether there WAS a contract and I don't think you need a Jury to determine that.

We don't even agree whether it's ethical for an Attorney to represent a client who has stated that the sole purpose of retaining that Attorney is to inconvenience or harass another party. I agree with AK; it's unethical. You posted a "disagree" (reddie) so you think it's ethical.

My other thinking is (and I realize you are thinking "jury") - what Attorney is going to take this case on a contingency basis. 1/3 of something like $7 an hour for 89 days and 1/3 of Unemployment benefits for who knows how long?

At any rate - I think you and I have said all that needs to be said. We aren't going to agree and so we have to wait for OP to come back and let us know.