Is it better to be terminated from a job or resign before termination?
I used to think it would be better to be terminated because of the answers that everyone shared here, but now that I had it happen to me a number of times, I know that is totally wrong and need to set the record straight for everyone here.It is nearly always better to resign before termination if you can convince HR to give you a severance package, guarantee that they won’t prevent you from being rehired in the future and they won’t contest your UI claim. There truly is no benefit to you whatsoever that you were terminated at all - especially if your next company requires you to document that you were terminated on your employment application. By doing that, you could have had a perfect interview, everyone may have loved you and everything was a dream come true, but that will stop nearly any job offer from coming. Hard stop. Period. End of story.If your boss truly wants you out of the company, s/he will do anything to get you out including making these promises. Just be sure to get them in writing so that you can sue for breach of contract IF they decide to renege on their promise. I assure you that you will not have a problem finding an attorney that will pass on such a case since it is so easy to win.By waiting until you are terminated, you have given control to the company up to and including preventing you from finding another job in the company (if desired - it’s been known to happen), blacklisting you or defaming your character or countless other negative things which will make getting a new job MUCH harder to get.The ONLY exception I can think of is if you have legal grounds which makes termination a better option — in other words, if you are being discriminated against (sex, age, etc.), work in a hostile workplace or have undisputed evidence where taking them to court (or even sending a “friendly letter” to the company’s HR department informing them of the repercussions of their actions) would give you enough of a payout that it would be worth it financially — typically 7 or more figures.
Why the movement to unjust termination seems to have died?
The Toscano v. Green Music case on page 464 involves the common law doctrine of employment-at-will. The traditional rule, still followed in North Carolina is that an employment contract is terminable at will. An employer may fire an employee, or the employee may quit at any time. The contract must be honored (salary, accumulated benefits, etc.) to the point of termination, but either party may terminate at will. In the 1960s, thirteen states replaced employment at will with unjust termination. An employee could sue alleging that s/he had been unjustly fired without good cause, and if the jury agreed, got his or her job back, loss wages, and attorney fees. No state has adopted unjust termination since the early 1970s, and all but 2 of the states that adopted it have repealed it within the last 10 years. Think about the arguments for it, against it, and why the movement to unjust termination seems to have died.
Grounds for unjust termination?
If a person was working at a job and at the end of their 90 day probationary time, their boss confronted them with the option of resign or be terminated and presented no justification, is that legal? There were several conversations during the 90 day period about performance issues but that was not discussed during this termination option meeting.
How do you define unfair dismissal?
In simple terms, unfair dismissal can be described as the instance when your employer terminates your employment contract without any fair reason to do so. The dismissal will also be considered unfair if your employer handles your termination without following a reasonable procedure. The employment law in the UK protects you against both these eventualities.Most employers in the UK lay out their policies and procedures, to handle a formal dismissal and other aspects of employment, into the employee handbook or your contract of employment. These procedures would include verbal warnings, a documented record of any attempts to resolve the situation, an opportunity for the defendants to present their side, and written final warnings before issuing the dismissal order.Therefore, if your employer doesn’t provide you with a fair indication of the issue, or fails to come up with an acceptable resolution, in line with the existing policies before dismissing you, you may proceed to claim in the employment tribunal against your employer’s decision to dismiss you. To prove unfair dismissal, therefore, you need to show that your employers didn’t follow proper procedure. It is also essential that you keep multiple copies of all correspondence, sent and received, and make notes regarding all actions surrounding your dismissal.
How adoption can be so unfair?
I know when you relinquish your rights you have no say. And there is nothing you can do if both parties don't hold their end of the bargain. I CHOSE the aparents, we mutually agreed to get to know each other and they knew that I wanted to know where my daughter was going. I wanted aparents who understood what I wanted like being able to get pictures, keep in touch. I held up my end, I had a say in where she would go. I keep hearing people say I gave up my right, yes but I chose them, they wouldn't have a baby unless I chosen them. Even after you give up your rights why wouldn't your wishes be honored considering you have done everything to keep your side of the agreement. I know that means very little in the eyes of the law. I know my aparents lied when they said they would tell her, turns out they had no intention of ever telling her and they do not want to be a part of her life ever. They would not have this gift as they call it without me. Am I nothing because I served my purpose. The adoption was a private adoption and according to the papers it is not open. I was young what did I know about the legality of papers. I made it clear that I wanted someone who was okay with me being a part of her life....though indirectly until she was told she was adopted, that day never came, she is 16. Its so unfair I Have always been discreet when contacting amom, I did everything asked of me, everything they wanted and now it doesn't matter what I had wanted. Amom said the last time we spoke that the adoption was never meant to remain open (but before I had her it was supposed to be open with contact), if I had known that I never would have chosen them.
Is the attorney contingency fee agreement I am being offered fair to both parties?
I have paid an attorney a small consultation fee to look into matters regarding what I consider to be an wrongful/illegal termination of my employment with my former employer. Two months after the telephone consultation the attorney informed me that he believes I do have a wrongful termination case and is willing to represent me. I recently received a fee agreement from him which states that I will pay $1,000 in legal fees, all of the court cost (estimated by the attorney to be between $2,500- $3,500), and the attorney will receive 35% of any reward won. I really have no information to base this on but I estimate that if this case was won at trial we may be awarded a maximum of $30,000. I make this estimate so that you understand this is not a multi-million dollar suit by any means. I am not greedy and I certainly want to properly compensate any attorney who represents me but I feel that this is a win-win situation for the attorney. I am unemployed currently and the minimum commitment of $3,500 would be one of the largest investments I have ever made. I am also somewhat leary because the attorney has taken 2 months to decide that I have a case which makes me feel like I may not be all that important to him. The attorney is located in New Mexico, the state of my ex-employer, and I moved back to Michigan after being terminated. This distance prevents me from knowing much about what is going on and makes me very dependent on the attorney being ethical. I would be willing to increase the attorney's reward percentage to 40% if he would lower or remove his legal fees and do a 60/40 split on the court costs with me paying the 60%. I just want him to be invested in the case so I know he will represent me to the best of his abilities. I have no problem taking some risk in the matter but it seems that the offered contract has me accepting all the risk. Am I asking too much? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. I have no experience with lawsuits. If any attorneys responds to this please note that you are one. I certainly hold your expertise in high regard. Thank you very much for any help on this!
What can a landlord do if a tenant refuses to leave after an eviction notice?
That depends on what you mean by “eviction notice.”An eviction notice is issued by a court after a legal process in which the landlord has been awarded possession of the premises.The eviction process is handled by a court and, if necessary, by local law enforcement pursuant to a court order. If the tenant refuses to leave after the eviction notice has been served then he or she will be forcibly removed from the premises. There is nothing the landlord needs to do.A landlord cannot issue an eviction notice because only a court has the power to evict someone from their home.But a landlord can issue a “termination notice” or a “notice to vacate” or similar notices to the tenant pursuant to the terms of the lease. If such notices have been properly issued and served, and the tenant refuses to leave, then the landlord must file a dispossession action in the local civil court which, after due process, will result in the court issuing an “eviction notice” as described above.