tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33004692.post7449319737472463319..comments2023-10-31T12:58:36.729+01:00Comments on Evil HR Lady: Laid OffSuzanne Lucashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07129772885673695447noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33004692.post-16961839877405317832010-03-09T14:03:38.055+01:002010-03-09T14:03:38.055+01:00I am not a lawyer, but having attended EEOC traini...I am not a lawyer, but having attended EEOC training events, and knowing people who have worked there -<br /><br />If the in-law was discriminated against (can't tell from the letter), rather than consult a lawyer, he should file a complaint with the EEOC (and he has to do this within 180 days of being laid off). <br /><br />The EEOC will investigate and determine if any laws were violated. This is free, they often will sue on behalf of the employee to recover back pay, forward pay, and reinstate them (which, again is free).<br /><br />There is a very very slim chance of the in-law getting hired as a consultant. If the in-law was discriminated against (again, can't tell from the letter) then he needs to worry about recovering back pay and forward pay and/or reinstatement.<br /><br />I'm just putting this out there as an alternate to the "lawyers are expensive" theme that was running through this letter. If federal law was violated, then there are some clear and free steps that need to be taken.evilbunnytoonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33004692.post-50217705799612292942010-03-08T20:11:58.381+01:002010-03-08T20:11:58.381+01:00As others have said, there is nothing in the origi...As others have said, there is nothing in the original letter that indicates that the in-law was discriminated against. The employee could have been let go for any number of reasons (bad economoy, poor performance, etc.). For all we know, the 4 weeks of severance could be a very generous offer.Michellenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33004692.post-85426271771807303522010-03-08T20:07:29.370+01:002010-03-08T20:07:29.370+01:00There is nothing wrong with asking for more severa...There is nothing wrong with asking for more severance. Most large companies have a set amount per years of service, and it wouldn't occur to them to offer more. It probably doesn't occur to employees to ask for it, either, given the shock of what they're going through at the time. But it doesn't hurt anything to ask. Call it an offset for the cost of benefits. Call it an offset for the loss of retirement income. Just ask if there is a chance that severance could be paid for 8 weeks, rather than 4, or whatever he's wanting to accept until this potential contract work comes through. Given his age, they may be quite willing to increase the severance in exchange for a signed release where he promises not to sue them.<br /><br />However, in my opinion, when there is a fair severance offer on the table and no hint of any wrongdoing from the company, there is something wrong with having a lawyer send a letter. This puts the company on notice that this guy is ready to sue. That will eliminate any chance of extra severance from a sympathetic manager/HR team. All it does is delay the process of getting any additional money by potentially several years, and if it does come, the attorney gets 30-40% of the chunk.<br /><br />4 weeks severance + 26(?) weeks unemployment + SS benefits + Medicare eligible = way more money than I'm expecting to get at age 65. This guy should have already been planning to retire at some point, right? Or how much longer was he planning to work?Interviewernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33004692.post-79725021173499521332010-03-08T19:32:36.953+01:002010-03-08T19:32:36.953+01:00My only thought about this is why isn’t this guy r...My only thought about this is why isn’t this guy <i>retiring</i> at his age? I’m surprised that his employer didn’t offer early retirement instead of a layoff. You’d think that after 35 years, he’d have quite a pension saved up. Perhaps he should negotiate this instead of severance. If he’s “unemployed” instead of “retired,” the employer also has to pay unemployment benefits (probably for quite a while, given that this is Detroit). It’d work out better for everyone to make this a “retirement” instead of a “layoff.” They obviously like the guy if they gave him seven months off for his health, so it probably won’t even need a scary letter from a lawyer.<br /><br />I agree with the others that a lawsuit is a bad idea. You said yourself that he never got an education or any advanced skills in his 35 years there. The employer just has to say that they’re laying off anyone without X skill set as a cost cutting measure, because employees with X are more productive. Oh, and they took care of the guy for decades even when he was sick, so it’s not personal. Case dismissed. Now he lost severance and unemployment benefits, and still has to pay that lawyer.Unemployed Galnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33004692.post-63693244669226219962010-03-08T17:09:19.808+01:002010-03-08T17:09:19.808+01:00I read this over and over, and NOTHING in the inla...I read this over and over, and NOTHING in the inlaws message implies there was any illegal activity on the part of the employer at all. The gist I get is that he/she is suggesting a lawsuit NOT based on an actual illegal incident of discrimination, but just because he/she doesn't see any other options for their relative to pick up some cash.<br />That is NOT what the legal system is for! The situation stinks. The economy in Detroit is awful. Many are suffering. But filing a lawsuit for the sake of filing a lawsuit clogs up the system for those who ACTUALLY HAVE A CLAIM. Filing a lawsuit in a "whattheheck" attempt to get some free money is SO wrong. The employer did not break the law. The inlaw seems to have a decent enough relationship where he feels he may continue to get work from them IF it is available. That's a BIG if. <br />But all indicators are that this termination was about the economy and it's effect on the company. Not on the employee's age or medical issues.<br />Grrrrrr....I hate frivolous lawsuits.janimalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11916480082033700432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33004692.post-49265687839461172642010-03-08T16:53:39.362+01:002010-03-08T16:53:39.362+01:00I've been tracking this whole age discriminati...I've been tracking this whole age discrimination issue for Personnel Concepts for some time now, and the recent Supreme Court "but-for" decision makes it extremely unlikely that anyone could prevail against an employer unless the employer blatantly fired that someone solely because of age.Get Off My Backhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09461493394831426978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33004692.post-86355546764138627152010-03-08T13:35:47.618+01:002010-03-08T13:35:47.618+01:00Sometimes even if you are right and you win your l...Sometimes even if you are right and you win your lawsuit, you lose.<br /><br />Talk to a few lawyers and see what they say.JobforMe?noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33004692.post-27127839176792285862010-03-08T00:52:52.825+01:002010-03-08T00:52:52.825+01:00Apparently they have kept younger folks around, he...Apparently they have kept younger folks around, hence my thought. I'm with EHRL all the way about winning a suit being a long shot, but that trying to negotiate something better with a lawyer might be worth trying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33004692.post-49638279038020227142010-03-07T23:44:07.025+01:002010-03-07T23:44:07.025+01:00Is there any evidence he was terminated for his ag...Is there any evidence he was terminated for his age? Because it's not illegal to treat people like crap. It's only illegal if they treat ONLY the old people (or Mexicans, or women, or whatever) like crap. If they treat everyone like crap, it's legal. There has to be discrimination.<br /><br />Your letter doesn't mention any discrimination at all, so that's an important thing to consider. In fact, if they gave him a seven-month leave, they went WAY beyond what the law requires. That would be pretty strong evidence that they *didn't* discriminate on the basis of his age, and that they actually bent over backwards for him.<br /><br />That said, it sucks. I think you're right that it's going to be tough for him to find work. But as EHRM points out, lawyers are expensive, and his dim prospects are all the more reason not to give your money to them. He's going to need that money.Kerry Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17590443839479686201noreply@blogger.com