Slashdot Mirror
Can You Be Sued for Quitting?
An anonymous reader asks: "I work at a large hosting company in Texas, and recently decided to go work for a smaller competitor. I had a great relationship with my employer and wanted to leave on good terms, and I hadn't signed any non-compete or employment agreements . I felt my old company had just gotten too large and I didn't like working there anymore, so I gave them two weeks notice in writing. They were really upset when I insisted on leaving and one week into my last two weeks the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving, and they were also suing my new employer for hiring me. I was shocked, and they then escorted me out of the building. Has anybody ever heard of this happening? Do they have any legal basis for suing me?" It shouldn't have to be said that seeking professional legal representation, in such a situation, is the first thing one should do.
In America you can sue anyone for anything.
Its a pain in the ass, it'll cost you some money, but they don't have a case so don't let it stress you out. The new company will need to deal with the suit on their end, the likelihood is their attorney can handle your suit as well.
Its happened to me twice, I think the total it cost me in legal expenses was $500 and a few hours to show up in court.
You may have good luck counter suing. Blog about it, too. Make sure potential customers of theirs know how they treat their employees.
The important thing is to not let it stress you out.
1. In the U.S., two-weeks is the customary length of notice for non-contract employees. A common phrase is, "They can't fault you, you gave them your two-weeks." Of course there are exceptions for people who are extremely unique in their position, but two-weeks is the customary time frame, and employers must pay you for those two full-weeks even if they choose to not let you stay after you give your notice.
2. I believe in the Google issue there was actually a contract saying one could not go work for a competitor, or start your own company in the same field (or some variation of such). Those are pretty common, but has nothing to do with two-weeks notice but what you do after you leave the company. These don't always hold up well - especially if the person didn't have any proprietary knowledge that will benefit the other company.
3. To the OP, all I can say is your company already screwed up by threatening a lawsuit. Unless there is some big info being left out, of course, they cannot sue you for quitting your job, UNLESS you signed a no-compete contract. The VP tells you this? There is some shady stuff right there - no one but HR should even discuss such things.
Sounds like you are getting out just in time. Again, if the situation is as described, I don't think there is anything to worry about - sounds like a couple of people who don't know what their legal rights are and aren't were trying to scare you. Now you just need to decide - do you just wash your hands of the place, or make sure that the jerks who tried to pull this crap on you are known for what they are.
I just have a feeling, though, that SOMETHING isn't being fully disclosed here.
AE
I guess he's in the USA. Diferent countries, diferent laws, even inside the EU. In Spain, for example, the notice needs not be sooner than 15 (working) days before. Anything more and your are being generous. For leaving in good terms I'd say one or two months. With that they should have plenty of time to start to search your replacement.
They can fire you for any reason execpt race,relgion,etc. In other words you are out of luck, just take the week with a smile; or since they fired you go file for unemployment.
However you could possibly sue them if they broke the employee handbook, that is generally considered a contract and breaking that has lead to million dollar lawsuits. However most companies settle out of court because of the bad press relations with future employees; how would you feel if when researching a company you find a message about that company firing people when they have given thier leave notice? When companies don't want soon to be former employees hanging around they normally just pay them the money for the remaining weeks and escort them out the door.
As for the lawsuit, time to hire a lawyer. Unless you were some grand person in thier company they probably don't have much of a recourse. You should get a lawyer and see if in Texas you can sue the other company for preventing you from performing in another job and see if filing for unemployment will hurt your case(it may strengthen it since confirms with an outside source that they fired you).
C - the footgun of programming languages
According to California labor law (IANAL too) 72 hours notice is all an ordinary employee without a contract needs give an employer before leaving. The ONLY penalty for not giving even this amount of notice is one might lose accrued vacation time.
72 hours. That's all. Just enough time so you can't quit on a Friday after work and never show up again.
Check your local laws, but I'll bet it's similar anywhere in the US of A.
With respect to the Google case, there was a non-compete clause in the worker's contract, IIRC.
In my case, the company I was working for had difficulty paying with checks that didn't bounce. Eventually a couple of us got together with another party to form another business. Somehow they discovered this plan, fired us and threatened the other party with a lawsuit and they wouldn't return our calls.
Texas is an at-will employment state. It allows either party to terminate employment for any reason or none at all. Employment agreements and non-competes still exist, however, and are often one-sided so one should be careful about working for people like that. (I once got a job offer from just such a company and their non-compete and other employee policies just made me feel creepy so I turned them down flat.)
The lawsuit is most likely an attempt at preventing him from being hired at a competitor's site. If the poster is truthful about the conditions stated, the employer's suit doesn't have merit and is merely a form of intimidation. This leads back to the other concensus which is the management at the bigger company is just not good. "Executive Hubris" is a term used is a previous Slashdot discussion and perhaps this is yet another example of such. I should hope that other employees at the bigger company are taking note of management's attitude...
Blödsinn. (Bullshit, for our English readers.)
In Germany, the standard is four weeks to the end of the month or the 15th of the month, unless your contract states something else. If I were offered a contract telling me I had to wait three months until I can walk away, I'd ask them to have their heads examined. Also, companies want to get rid of people *quicker*, that's why there is so much discussion in Germany about changing the work laws to allow companies to fire people with no delay whatsoever.
Notice there's a difference in whether you're quitting or you're fired. You can always quit with four weeks notice, but if they want to fire you, it depends on how long you work at the place. A coworker has been fired after 11 years at the company and they had to give her four months notice.
There go my mod points, but this was SO wrong I had to jump in.
As a side note - I've got so much overtime and vacation left that when I find a new job, I can leave the same minute and they still have to pay me for eight weeks. (Of course I will offer to freelance at a fair rate to not endanger my projects, but that's only because I don't want to leave my coworkers stuck in the shit.) So there are your "three months notice".
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
In Ontario, where I live, the law is that your employer must give you two weeks notice, or two weeks pay in lieu of notice when firing you without cause. Case law says they have to give you more than 2 weeks if you have been working for some certain amount of time. If there is cause for dismissal, they don't have to give you notice. On the other hand, when you leave your employer, you don't have to give them any notice. They also in return, don't have to give you a good reference. I'm not sure how contracts and all that other stuff fits in, but unless they have it in writing that you can't leave without X amount of notice, then you can leave whenever you please.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
They were really upset when I insisted on leaving and one week into my last two weeks the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving, and they were also suing my new employer for hiring me. I was shocked, and they then escorted me out of the building.
IANAL, but the way I see it, and consult your lawyer about this, you were still employed with your old company when they escorted you out the door one week before you planned to leave. Did they pay you for that last week? If not, they terminated your employment, not you. Because of this, you have a right to gainful employment anywhere, including the competition. Because you say you didn't sign a non-compete agreement, this "non-payment" of your proposed final week can only help you in court. (I say "proposed" because you could have always changed your mind and continued working there as per their request.)
Texas is a right-to-work state, theres very little ground they have in suing you. Even if you had a non-compete disclosure. It's ahrd to up hold in a court of law.
If you are working in Texas, you the priviledge in that Texas is a "employment at will"(PDF) state. The implications are that you can work, or not work, when you want to. That doesn't mean your boss has to keep your employed, but it means they can't stop you from leaving either (and unions can't stop you from working, too).
From the PDF link above:
(emphasis mine)
If I were you, I would have your lawyer look into whether this company has a history of such litigation. If so, I would have your lawyer counter sue, for a lot of money, for legal harassment. This is in light of the "employment at will" and previous behavior.
Hell, I'm an attorney and I would love to get this case (too bad it's in a different state). What this sounds like is a bunch of legally clueless management types got mad, and decided to take it out on this guy, using a court system they're ignorant about.
If I were his lawyer I'd countersue for malicious prosecution, tortious interference with business relationship, and hell maybe intentional infliction of emotional distress depending on the facts of the case. A lot of states also have attorneys' fees statutes for frivolous actions, so I'd ask for attorneys' fees too.
Unfortunately the company would probably fold after one letter to their corporate counsel, so whatever lawyer this guy gets likely wouldn't get the pleasure of bringing this to trial.
IANAL (but my sister-inlaw is an ADA in Texas!)
:)
:>
;) cl@xganon.com
1) Can they sue you? Sure they can try, but will it hold up in court? Probably not.
2) Will you have to defend your self? Sure, so get a lawyer NOW!
Now for the fun part
3) (IN Texas) By verbally notifying you of their intent to sue, (I hope you have a witness!) they are now financially responsible for the cost incurred in your preparation to defend your self should they not follow through with it. This means that if it was a scare tactic and they had no intent of suing you, they have to pay all your lawyers fees!
I know this because I used to run a large anonymous service. Every time I received a letter threating to sue me, my attorneys eyes would light up! It was like a bonus check for him
He would put in all the work preparing a defense (and some people can make BIG threats) then when he found their intent was not to sue, we would sue them.
I hope this helps!!
Oh, and if you are leaving does that mean that they have an opening.
If they've got a legitimate claim against you, you'd probably know about it.
/., but I sincerely hope you're listening the attorney you hired and not just us.
Did you take company documents with you when you left?
Did you have special access to trade secrets, business plans, etc?
Did you make any implicit agreement to stick around?
For example--If the policy manual says you can submit education expenses (get some license or cert) but you have to stick around for 1 year afterward--you agreed to stick around when you submitted the expenses.
Of course, anybody can sue anybody else for anything, and does it all the time.
The issue is not necessarily whether they can win the suit or not--you're probably being set out as an example for any other employees that might be thinking of jumping ship.
Thank you for raising an interesting question on
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Actually, if you quit with less than two weeks notice in Ontario your employer is entitled to report your termination as a firing.
....and you're in Texas, which is a 'right-to-work' state. They're free to cut you loose for any reason whatsoever and you're free to quit for any reason (2 weeks notice is just gracious). Unless you have a written contract, you are in breach of nothing. (IANAL too but...) They have no basis for a lawsuit.
Another Tech guy in Texas.
Assuming that all we have been told is true (seems to be a few details missing), then call your local bar association for a referral. In most places, the initial consultation will cost only a modest amount, $25-$50 or so. An employer will often use a lawsuit to try to scare an employee who wants to leave, or to prevent them from working with a competitor. Most of the time these suits are baseless, but on the rare occasion they may have some merit. Get an Attorney to go over your contract and give you an opinion. I found myself in a similar situation once - I paid just $25 for the consultation, and the Attorney (after reviewing the contract) said that a suit (in my particular case) would most likely be dismissed out of hand. I took his advice, and my former employer never followed through on their threat.
Wow, a non-AC who didn't understand the parent post because it used four letter words (or derivatives of such) to get its point across.
If I give my notice and you tell me to go home immediately, you're telling me that you no longer trust me to be on your property. The only reason not to want me there is because you're afraid I might cause some sort of damage. (After all, even if I come in and spend the whole day surfing the web, it's not costing you any more than it is to pay me to sit at home and surf the web.) I don't know what companies you've worked for, but I've never seen this and I'd be highly insulted if it happened to me.
If they report it as a firing, then you are entitled to EI. All the better for the employee. They don't usually give you EI if you quit. Unless you have good reasons such as excessive stress for leaving. I don't see how it would be a disadvantage to be fired, when if you're leaving on that short notice, you're probably not expecting a good reference. I don't see a problem, unless future employers can look at your record of employment, not sure if they can, and if they can, not sure if many do.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Incorrect.
You can state facts. including bad ones but you just gotta watch your step.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
I am a Texas attorney, and, while I cannot give you specific legal advice without knowing the facts regarding your situation, generally in a situation like this I would suggest that the employee not worry about it until they are actually sued, but to be proactive. Unfortunately, companies with deep pockets sometimes just choose to make former employees' lives miserable. If there is no non-compete or employment agreement, suits such as this are generally based on common-law trade secret misappropriation or the Texas theft liability act. If the employee has no idea why they are being sued, it may be beneficial to send a letter (certified return receipt requested) asking why they are suing and what the employee did to cause this and what they can do to avoid it - as an effort to prevent litigation, this may provide grounds to recoup attorney's fees if a suit results. Another thing to keep in mind is that if the threats of a suit negatively impact the employee's relationship with their new employer, they may have grounds for a suit or counterclaim against the previous employer.
Well, labor and employment law is complicated, but fortunately my wife used to practice it. :) Basically, a contract cannot restrict you from making a living. If you are a real estate agent, and you sign an employment contract that keeps you from working for a competing real estate agency within some geographic area, that contract is not enforcible - it is restricting you from making a living. In general, the lower you are on the totem pole, the more sympathetic the courts will be. I think in layman's terms (which is all that I understand), an employment contract is not all that strong because you really don't have much of a bargaining position - especially if you are in an entry level position. Contracts are not supposed to valid if signed under duress.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
One common thread that I have noticed at all of the companies that I have worked for (in Indiana and Ohio) is that the company policies tend to say, "If you give us at least 2 weeks written notice then we will pay you for all of your unused PTO/vacation when you leave." So while there may be no legal requirement to give notice, there are certainly financial incentives in many cases. For example, I just turned in my notice at my current employer on Tuesday, and I gave them roughly 2.5 weeks notice. When I leave they're going to pay me about a month's salary in unused PTO.
In my state (New York) it's required that they pay you for any accured vacation time regardless of whether or not you give them notice.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
failing to give notice certainly can affect references, as many companys will consider you not eleigible for re-hire if you leave without notice
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Depends on your state bud.
In Texas (and many other states), you can be fired without notice and without reason as long as it is not one of the big protected reasons (race, religion, sex).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
even in most "at will" employment states, there are still restrictions. one which applies in every state in which i know anything about employment law (all of which are "at will" states) is that once you give notice, your employer is restricted from firing you. there are exceptions, of course - if they were going to fire you anyway (and can document it), or you stop showing up, for example - and there's a concept of a reasonable period built in (no giving six months notice), and the details vary state-by-state, but that's the general idea.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
"If I was a manager and an employee just up and quit one day, I certainly would mention that if someone called me to check a reference."
Depending on which state you live in, you may be breaking the law. Generally, the legal questions you are entitled to answer as an employer are -
1- From which dates did employee work
2- Job title/responsibilities
3- Rate of pay
4- Re-hire status - either they would or wouldn't re-hire you
So legally you could tell them the re-hire status is negative, but you usually can't give the reason why. One of my former bosses was sued by a former employee for divulging all kinds of information he shouldn't have.
"But this one goes to 11!"
In Minnesota at least the law clearly states what you can say. Basically when they worked there, what they did, and what training you provided them. You can say more if you want, but you aren't protected from lawsuits if you do.
Linky
I wouldn't be surprised if many larger companies have policies that they provide only a bare minimum of information so as to protect themselves from disgruntled ex-employee lawsuits.
And think of it this way. If the person no longer works here, why do I care if someone else hires him? He's not my problem anymore. Providing bad references is vindictive, serves no purpose for the company, and only adds risk. Even if I say "He's great, I'd hire him back in a heart beat!" and he does a really bad job at the next company, I could get into trouble there, too. It's less risky for the company to keep track of such things internally so they do/don't hire back people but not share that with others.
Which is why you state specific facts...
it isnt libel when it is true, or slander for that matter since it would be spoken not written.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis