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.
But without a non-competition agreement I can't see that theirs would go very far. Of course anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything. Actually winning a judgement is another matter.
Perhaps your former employer might be better advised to spend the money and effort having a consultant come in and find out why they are losing people - a professional job satisfaction survey, say. If you have found that the work environment has changed enough to motivate you to seek employment elsewhere, then others are likely thinking the same thing. Maybe their threat of a lawsuit is a form of coercive message to other workers that they had better stay... or else!!
If they gave you no explanation then they're full of hot air! They're only attempting to discourage you from sharing your knowledge with the smaller competitor. If your future employer refuses to offer you employment due to a possible lawsuit them you may have a VERY big check coming your way if you counter-sue your former employer for defamation and damages.
I used to work for a Fortune 500 company a few years back that attempted the exact same stunt to a coworker that quit, they were hoping to scare him accepting employment from a much smaller consulting company which happened to compete with them. In the end, the big Fortune 500 employer never sued, but the ex-coworker sued them for defamation and won a real nice 6 figures out of those a$$holes.
Generally speaking, you should always try to have a written contract of employment so you know where you stand with regards your employment. Just because you didn't sign anything doesn't mean there are no terms under which you are employed - it is just that they have not been reduced to a written form.
If you were in a particularly senior position and/or handled sensitive information as part of your job, then it is likely that there would some form of non-compete in place. If you are able to, check your staff handbook (if any) and try to obtain a copy of a contract of employment from a friend at your old workplace to see if there is any mention of a non-compete clause. If there is, then it makes your position weaker unfortunately.
IAAL and I think the only people that ever win in court are the lawyers. It is in everyone's interests to avoid going to court if at all possible as it will be a waste of time, money and effort.
Perhaps you could try writing to the employer? Explain reasons for leaving, that you want to leave on good terms, wish them well etc. Say you were disappointed to hear that they are considering taking action against you and would like them to explain the basis for doing so.
Worse case scenario is that they go ahead. Best case, you find out that they were never consider taking action in the first place or they realise they are being silly and move on.
(Standard disclaimer: Whilst IAAL this should not be considered legal advice. See a local lawyer if you feel the situation warrants it).
Now that's the idea.
...
I propose the poor guy sues his company. before it has time to sue him.
IANAL, but I'm sure a pro can find a few nicely worded offenses commited by this company (Breaking the freedom of choosing its employer, being considered as a serf belonging to the company while slavery has been abolished for some time, moral prejudice for unneeded sufferings, cruelty (in group), libel (?), being an asshole (NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, even if 2 centuries of practice make most american think it is), intimidation, unheeded meddling in someone's affairs, etc
Anyhow, if they want to play dumb, he should just play harder...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Where I work we are required to give three months notice.
This leads to what I like to refer to as the 'abusive relationship situation'. This is where once an employee gives notice their life is made HELL until they are out. The abuse comes from peers and all levels of management. Peers think you are a traitor for leaving them with the workload and having to train up someone new, and management resent you for leaving, prolly 'cos they never had the guts to.
The situation is so bad that some employee's accumulate as much PTO (Paid time off) as they can, so they can submit their resignation and be on PTO up to their terminal date.
It is really sad that we don't celebrate our colleagues perusing their ventures, like we should.
IANAL either, but this guy is (in Texas): http://www.brownemploymentlaw.com/non_competition. shtml
But, by firing you a week early, they've fired you. In Kansas, the state in which I've been fired a couple of times, I can tell you that you should at least file a claim with the unemployment office so that their unemployment insurance rates will go up.
And as for the two weeks notice ... it depends on the company you work for as to wether that was a good thing. As an employer, I certainly appreciate the notice and always have amicable relations with employees who are leaving. As an employee, I've never felt compelled to commit sabotage after giving my notice.
When I left my first real job, after six and a half years there I gave them four months notice. I wasn't sure where I was going or what I was going to do, but I knew I was leaving. So I told them. About two months short of that, I decided to start my own business in direct competition, so after sitting on that idea for a month, I told them. I was told that they were going to accept my resignation early. I told them, "Bullshit. You're firing me. If you think that I haven't had ample opportunity to mine whatever resources I'd want to steal, than you're an idiot. I've hated you for at least the last four years, and those conditions haven't changed. I'm leaving in one month unless you are firing me right now." And so I got fired. But it was stupid on their part, because even though they knew I was going they hadn't prepared for it and they nearly crippled themselves for a couple of weeks. Though, I suppose, there's no way to really prepare for a highly-trained employee to leave, and even if you have two weeks to hire someone the transition is never smooth.
Actually, it is the oposite: just because I have work ethics, I do not expect anyone else to.
When someone gives me notice, I send them home that day and usually pay out the rest of the week.
When I fire someone, I usually pay out the rest of the week; if they get paid the week after they work, I'll get them their last check as early as possible.
But once someone says "I'm leaving in two weeks", I cannot expect them to put 100% into their work -- and I certainly don't want them hanging around telling all my customers and employees about their great new job.
Running a company is a matter of managing liabilities: hey, if you do great work then I want you here. If I can no longer count on you to do great work, why would I keep you around? Even something as simple as a twisted ankle turns into an insurance claim and Workman Compensation issues; costs that I do not want to incure over someone who I know will not be working for me in 14 days.
Wow, an abrasive AC that didn't understand the parent post. I'm shocked.
He isn't saying that he's doing the equivalent of firing someone after they give their notice. He's letting the person go home and is paying them for the two weeks. This is very standard practice among companies and benefits BOTH sides. The employee isn't in the office POSSIBLY giving sub-standard work, affecting morale, or remaining a liability for their last two weeks of work. If the employee is evil, they're now deprived of the opportunity of causing problems.
Absolutely, two weeks notice is a courtesy. And employers appreciate that. But not all employers have a need to utilize the employee for those two weeks, and if you can get by without them, it is in your best interests to do so.
In many cases it works to your advantage to give notice. How many times do you hear about sysadmins or like jobs (where you could do a lot of damage) being walked out after giving notice, but being paid for the two weeks? I remember stories right here on slashdot about that, and many of the comments indicated that was not a totally unusual experience. I don't know about you, but what better way is there to leave a job than with two extra weeks vacation (because you'd drain all your vacation first, right)?
:)
Maybe my theory is based on anecdote, but look at it like this: you stand to lose nothing from turning in notice. Ok, so people may not be nice to you any more. Who cares? In two weeks it'll be a memory. Unless you just have an axe to grind and want to screw over your former co-workers (because the company itself won't care much) just turn in notice. The courteous thing is often the right thing. I guess I sound like Jiminy Cricket now
blah blah blah
There is a lot of incest in the local job market -- anyone who leaves would almost be expected to take some underlings and accounts with them. That is why -- again, generally -- I must get people out of the office as soon as I know they have another job.
Now I can tell you the parable of the $22 commission.
There was a company. The sold big dollar equipment. $30,000 or more per sale. They had 5 or 6 people in the filed. And back at the company. They had one guy who handled all the after market stuff. They sold about $350,000 a year in after market stuff.
This guy, had a sick relative in the area, had just moved to town, and was willing to work for anything. So they started him out at $22,000.00 a year. He told them he would work hard, and talk about salary after a year. He went to work, went through 20 file cabinets of old records and cold called everyone who had ever bought a piece of equipment from the company. Asked them if they still had it around or used it. Got some of them to start using it. Would call some people and say "hey, it has been 3 months since you ordered, I am having a slow week, help me out."
Bottom line, after 3 months, he outsold, everyone out in the filed, by selling $300.00 of stuff at a time. He also sold 10 or 11 systems in that time...but he did not get credit for those, only the "in the field" reps got credit. Turned after market from $350,000 into better than $1,100,000. Not bad work for the year.
So the year is up, they offered him a raise, of 50 cents. Yes, from $22,000.00 a year to $23,000.00 though he could demonstrate that he made the company an extra million a year in after market and equipment sales.
So a competitor heard about him, and offered him $36,000.00 per year starting pay, promised to have him at $48,000.00 inside of two years, PLUS profit sharing and his commissions. He took it. Gave two weeks notice and offered to train his replacement. Well, they fired him on the spot.
You know what, he was cool with that. So he got his pay, But for what he sold that month, he should of had a commission check of about $270.00. We had talked, and he was going to leave his old customers alone, and just build his business by cold calling from their old files at the new company.
Well, they sent him a commission check of $22.00. When he complained that he sold "x" that month and it should be about $270.00 they told him he did not work there any more and that was just to bad....
At that point, he decided, Over that $250.00 he would take every customer he could. Now I will note, he had almost a photographic memory. he Knew all the prices on the products, what the markups were, and most of his own customers. He had no problem at all moving them over.
So the company he had worked for, in addition to losing him, by being cheap. Also lost, what has amount to several million dollars in sales over the course of a few years, because they thought screwing him out of $250.00 was a funny thing to do. And make no mistake, if they would have given him that $250.00, he would have left them alone. It went from "ethical" to "personal" with the way they had treated him at that point.
vi +
Possibly because you're not legally allowed to say anything bad about a former employee when acting as a reference. You can either say something good, or refuse to comment.
While that is not technically correct; many companies, in the US at least, have policies against saying anything and will merely verify employment. They don't want to be sued, whether it is by an ex-employee who has a different interpretation of the "facts" or by another company who hired someone you said was great but turns out to be a criminal. It's simply safer to say nothing in the US' litigious society.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.