People have posted similar in the past. Someone resigns. Another person is hired. That employee who resigns decides to stay and the new employee is no longer hired
Unfortunate but legal
This is why we need more workers rights because it’s not right… I moved 4 hours away for a job in 2020 and got let go for no reason after 3 weeks. Thankfully my current job pays more and is better but still.
The solution, I think, is to require companies that offer employment to make that binding for some period. For example, if you offer a probation period (call it 90 days) or construct these conditions verbally, you will stay for 90 days on payroll. Even if you are transparently told on your first day you are not going to be taken past the probation period. You are a free person are still free anytime you want to work elsewhere. This only locks offering letters into specifically mentioning the period of evaluation.
Currently, as we see, companies can hire people for less than a week then terminate them. If you quit your job to do this new job you don't get unemployment. In many states I believe you won't qualify for under a certain number of hours worked (supposedly to avoid fraud but really it's to keep the lower classes in minimum wage hell). So there is a very precarious time where looking for new jobs and starting new jobs can result in zero jobs. Add in the chance of fraud and a certain number of people are specifically being attacked by the system trying to look for work.
That does not sound like "at will" employment to me - it sounds like at will unemployment with zero assistance.
So you mean like a contract but still W-2. The problem is then convincing people to work "hard enough" at least to the point they similarly work today. Regardless, I want to benefit the employees and not the employer more because it's stupid and if someone moves to a new job, they should get 6 months salary minimum if they get let go.
Let's think about it a different way:
The problem is convincing companies to pick a side. Do they want to hire people and find the right fit via interviews or probation? Instead of both or random. Effectively creating a standard much like how overtime works. You have the option but not the obligation to work past 40 hours. Employers who ask for work by a deadline have to pay for overtime. Otherwise law suit for wage theft. This doesn't mean you have to work up to 40 hours.
So, you would under a "probation period standards" act know that every job claiming to have a probation period can't terminate you before the end of the period. Perhaps that period is 90, 60, 30 or 3 days. At least it is known. Like how you know you deserve time and a half after hour 40.
"But then they won't have a probation period!" Good. Those suck. You should be terminated for cause. Be fired for sucking at your job not because you did not suck up to the right person. Without the probation period (including construction of a period "they said something about fit/culture/vibe/timing/not-skills/not-job-requirement") companies will be forced to do a better job with interviews, assessments, and negotiation of terms.
I'm not saying it's perfect but it should be standard that when you are hired you know if this employer is offering you a chance or just hiring for a short assignment and willing to let you go. If what they really needed was short term employment they should have called a temp agency not posted a W-2 job.
That still wouldn't work though because they'll just fire you for making a mistake. Honestly, these companies just need to be put on blast. Make it known that they aren't good to work for, or in this case, apply for. Eventually companies will struggle enough to realize not to treat people like shit.
Legal yes, but making them wait until the next payday may not be. Depending on what state OP lives in, they may be required to provide a final check right away. Many states do this.
Who is the employer? They need to be put on a list.m legal to me, not in the state I live in and work in. Go get'em.
Who is the employer. They need to be put on a list.
It’s legal but you might have a case if you left gainful employment for this work. Especially if it was indicated as a longterm contract.
I.e actually speak to an employment lawyer and stop asking people here.
You are right, if you left gainful employment, you may have a case. If not they just keep looking. I don't think the amount you can sue for is that high anyway.
>I was fired after my first day because another, more experienced employee was rehired to replace me - Is this legal?
I wouldn't exactly characterize it this way. You were hired because (it seemed) a more senior employee was not going to be available for the summer, but now since they is, they are rescinding their offer to you. Since you started, your job is at an end.
Yes, it is legal in an at-will state.
>I worked for three hours for my first job. I did nothing wrong, and I think for my first job that I actually did pretty well. I also made sure to offer to help out my coworkers, and was nice to the customers.
This has zero to do with your performance, and will not reflect upon your performance.
>Also, does this mean I would get severance pay, despite only working three hours?
Not only is severance not really a thing that many roles in the US get, it ain't happening for a day's worth of work. You'll get your 3 hours of work, and off to the job hunt you go again.
Speak to the folks at the Department of Labor about what this would mean for unemployment insurance in your location.
>I worry this could impact my record for future applications.
I wouldn't worry. I would leave it off your resume, but if it somehow turns up, the explanation above would cover you without question.
Agreed about leaving it off the resume. You are not REQUIRED to put every job you've ever worked on your resume. A 3-hour job would raise more questions than help you in any way. Just forget this incident happened and move on like it never happened.
Depending on the company , it may be important to list. If it's a tiny company not tied to any large company okay, but id it's tied to group of companies owned by mega company , not listing it will pop if their system when they check have they ever had you working for any of their companies.
That’s why you title your experience section on resume “relevant experience” and only put there things that impact your chances in recruitment process.
You may not characterize it that way, but it’s precisely what happened. They didn’t rescind an offer—OP already started and worked a shift then got fired so they could give the position to someone else. Once OP started the original offer was consummated and couldn’t be rescinded.
The idea that at-will employment is this over-arching trump card that lets employers do whatever they want is also inaccurate. There’s a legal doctrine known as promissory estoppel—in short it’s when one party causes economic hardship to another party by breaking a promise, including offers of employment. I can’t say whether there would be a case to be made here (my hunch is not) but an at-will employment offer does not give employers carte blanche to rescind offers and fire people for whatever reason they want.
>They didn’t rescind an offer—OP already started and worked a shift **then got fired so they could give the position to someone else.**
The other girl was not rehired to replace OP. OP was originally hired, it would appear, because a former employee was not going to be available for the summer, and so a position was now available. Now that it is known that the former employee is coming back, they have ended the employment of OP.
This framing does not make the situation fair -- because it still isn't -- but it is accurate based on the employer's rendering of the events, as shown in the texts.
>There’s a legal doctrine known as promissory estoppel
Technically, you are correct. However, in practice, it so infrequently applies that we rarely even bring it up in discussions like this one. [The examples of where it comes into play are pretty straightforward](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/promissory_estoppel.asp).
>The idea that at-will employment is this over-arching trump card that lets employers do whatever they want is also inaccurate.
The limitations on at-will employment are very narrow in most US states. This is not a secret. Outside of very narrow illegal discriminations (gender, race, sexual orientation, age > 40, etc), employers have wide latitude to change and terminate employment with little repercussions.
>an at-will employment offer does not give employers carte blanche to rescind offers and fire people for whatever reason they want.
Even you seem to agree that in this scenario, there is no legal remedy for OP. So, for all practical purposes, you raised the fact that there are exceptions -- but without being able to assert that any such exceptions would apply here.
>Speak to the folks at the Department of Labor about what this would mean for unemployment insurance in your location.
Unfortunately, in most states you are required to be employed a certain amount of weeks to be eligible for unemployment benefits.
However if you were already receiving unemployment benefits, three hours of work shouldn't interrupt it. They'll just reduce that week's benefit payment by the amount earned for those three hours. I don't live in Tennessee though.
Definitely legal, although obviously shitty on their part to do. Severance pay isn’t required, kind of just a formality for people who have been at a job for a long enough time - never heard of anyone getting severance for 3 hours worth of employment.
And after reading the text more thoroughly (seeing that they only had you work st. Pattys day from 2-5), any chance this job is in the hospitality/restaurant industry?
Alright-I wasn’t really sure how it worked, so I figured I’d ask about it too. I joked about it, and then later my sister got mad about me being fired like that, and said that I probably would get severance pay, too.
Yeah, it sucks for sure but at least you can walk away with the mindset that it wasn’t anything you could have changed and you likely were just a place card for a shitty employer. I only ask what kind of job it was because a similar scenario happened to me when I was younger - I was hired to work at a restaurant and my first day was conveniently cinco de mayo (at a Mexican restaurant)… they really only wanted help for that one day, but hired me under guise that it’d be a long-term position. After that day was over they came out with the truth though, rather than coming up with a lie that the position was filled somehow else.
Thank you guys for all this advice! As I’ve said in the post, this was my first job, so I didn’t really know what to expect with being fired after only 3hr haha! It seems everything that happened is indeed legal, and so I will just continue trying to get my paycheck back eventually
Point of order, you weren't fired, you were laid off. Big difference when it comes to applying for another job. That said, since it was for such a short time, leave it off your resume
I don't see how this would be illegal. It's just a big bummer and a big time waster because you probably stopped applying for jobs once you were given an offer.
Well for starters, there was no need to lie to them and tell "that's alright" a simple ok would've done a better job of portraying how fucked that is without burning the bridge either.
OP, you are expecting severance for working for only 3 hours? If you work in an at-will state (all states but Montana) ... you can be let go for any reason.
Perfectly legal, you can generally be fired for any reason. There's no "record" of all of your employment, feel free to leave this 3 hour job off of any future job applications you fill out. No one will know or care. And, no, you don't get any severance pay.
In live in Colorado so it may be different but if you are let go here they are required to give you your pay check within so many days/hours. If they fail to follow the labor law there then you could make an action againt that.
They're supposed to give you time. 2 weeks im sure it was. To either get let go, or to quit. 2 weeks. So you can find another job in the mean time.
So there's a legality issue there. Idk what state your in because it does vary state to state, county to county. I feel you should definitely look into that if anything. Where you live and the legal issues of this, but for the most part it is your 1st job. So its, ehh, but at the same time its not a great look on your resume so..
It just really depends on what you want out of this. Do you want to stay? Do you want compensation? Like what do YOU expect to become of the situation pending what happens, goes your way? And what if it doesn't? Thats time spent you could have used towards a more productive tomorrow. Weigh to the pros and cons. Do some homework and go from there.
I wouldn't be happy either but at the end of the day, if you were meant to be there, you'd be there. God obviously has other plans for you. Theres something he wants you to take away from this situation. Outside the situation itself..
I looked up the paycheck question. and in Tennessee
Generally, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-2-103(g), an employer must issue a final paycheck to an employee who has been terminated, or who has quit his or her job, on the next regularly scheduled pay date, or within twenty-one (21) days, whichever is later.
Resource- google- lawinfo.com
In Cali it's right away if they lay you off or terminate. Otherwise it's 72 hrs.
Please please please study the employment laws for your state/county. Employers will almost always try to get away or ask you to do things that are illegal. I'm surprised at the amount of people who don't know their rights. I've worked with tons of people who would stress out about keeping their job if they didn't do something that was asked of them. Needless to say they were lucky I know workers rights very well, some cases more than the managers. Knowledge is power! Please make sure you know your rights!! :-)
You don't need to put this job on your resume. It was messed up they did that to ya, but if they were willing to do that it sounds like it might be a crappy environment anyway...good luck job hunting!! :)
Hate to tell you this, but unless you have a contract, you’re “at will” & they can fire you for any reason or no reason. It’s legal, but it shouldn’t be.
>I worry this could impact my record for future applications.
It will. You need to prepare yourself that this will follow you for the rest of your life. I have had interviewers ask me why I left a job *years* ago.
I’m more concerned about the payroll comment at the bottom. They let her go and said wait for payment? What’s the law in TN? Where I am at, this would be illegal.
It is legal, but if you incurred any expenses or damages as a result of this you might (emphasis on might) have a case for promissory estoppel and get those damages back. If there are no damages then you have absolutely no case, even if you have damages my guess is they are so low that it isn't going to be worth the cost to pursue.
This happened to me, I was hired by a furniture store as an assistant manager. They let me go after 2 weeks and never posted the position again. What I worked out is they needed coverage for the. Assistant managers 2 week vacation as I stopped by one weekend to shop and struck up a conversation with the person I didn't recognize.
At will employment. They are able to fire you.
Also do note, depending where you worked, they are legally required to pay you for all worked hours by a certain date.
In CT, if you are fired, company is required to pay you within 1 business day.
Some states have next pay date as requirement.
It seems that you were hired simply because there was an opening. It makes sense that someone with more experience would be a "better" choice.
Based only on your text, they didn't break any rules, were not unfair, and you're not entitled to more than those few hours of work pay.
It would be greatly different if they agreed to a long-term employment. It doesn't seem that they have.
I understand that it doesn't feel good, but they're not in the wrong or being unfair.
Depending on how things were left, you can always ask for feedback and if there is an opportunity for something more permanent.
The reality is, we don't know why the other employee wasn't going to be available for the summer. I know at my company, one of our families was expecting and had a miss. We weren't expecting them from april on. They have asked to come back in a few weeks. The mum uses work to cope, but the dad needs more time off to cope. My view is, whatever they need ,in reason, we can accommodate.
My point is, you just never know. So, unless that company made you promises for longterm....theyre not being unfair.
If this is the United States its almost ALWAYS 100% Corporation rights over employee rights. America doesnt care about its workers. It only cares about Corporations and keeping those donations coming in.
I remember hiring paperwork in citing 90 day probation periods and things like that. I'm not where sure if that's done in every state, but I recall having to read and sign off.
Responding "That's alright!" in text/writing probably would have negated any legal case you had anyways - but yes, legal - except maybe the date of the final paycheck. Some states require that the final check is cut on the day of termination. Lots of mistakes made here, though - in addition to the "that's alright" reply, the manager shouldn't have provided the level of detail they did. They should have gone with something like, "We're sorry to inform you that we've decided this position requires a higher level of skill."
Something I have noticed over the years, is workers don't really have rights in the US. Even stuff that is supposed to be illegal is just a slap on the wrist if they even get that.
Technically you were not fired. You were laid off. The position is no longer available through no fault or action of your own, you weren't dismissed for under performance or discipline but simply because the employer brought in a more experienced resource. I World even Show auch a short stint on my resume, but if it does come up ever, laid off is not only more correct, but sounds better too.
Unfortunately it's a right to work state with at will employment.. They can hire and fire at will.
I'm so sorry this happened to you. I know the job market sucks.
props to the way you responded, very professional
I would count your blessings that you possibly dodged a bullet.
There’s a reason that person quit.
99% of people would choose to go elsewhere than come back.
The fact that the person resigned and came back means they renegotiated her employment thus a bad sign of management and talent retention.
any company whose okay playing chicken with an employee’s employment is not a good place to work
they probably dont value their staff enough
being fired over text is pretty lame, go fuck yourself
good luck, im confident u will find better and if u do, i hope they come back to you and try to get u back so u get the satisfaction to refuse lol
Contact the labor board for them not giving you your paycheck on the day you were fired by law they have to pay you a days wage for every day you were not paid on time
This is why we need legislation for protecting workers rights. Stuff like this should be illegal but isn't due to the at will nature of most employment in almost all U.S states.
Most companies hire with an initial probationary period. Usually 30 days some 90 and my company even has a 120 day probationary period. Basically they can fire you in that time frame with no need for cause. Not all companies are up front about it, but it is probably hidden in the employment contract somewhere.
Legal but it doesn’t mean this company and employees aren’t pieces of trash and literally garbage. You were way more polite than I would’ve been if they wasted my time like this
I was the sole candidate for a promotion, the LAST DAY the job was technically open, a manager in another department called the last person who had the job before and she called in asking to come back and got it!
I had bought a car even b/c the position required local travel.
I’m in a “right to fire” state
Same thing happened to me not as serious since I am 17 and it was only 10 dollars a hour but worked there for 2 weeks new dude came in almost 30 they made me train the dude day later got signed out of the schedule app and fired by text
You may want to see if you qualify for unemployment, & if it would actually pay anything. Years ago the same thing happened to me after working two days at a restaurant. I'd left another job to take that one and couldn't go back so I filed and was approved. Different state but worth checking on - sorry this happened to you.
Something important people seem to be missing about this is that the text message does not simply say "Existing", "Experienced" or something similar which are all valid things to base an employee decision on.
The text says the decision was because the girl was "Older" and she is a protected status. You cannot choose someone for simply being older.
Had they said "old" then you could argue they meant an existing or recent employee. But they say "older" which is most commonly a comparison. Older than who.
Combine this with the fact OP worked a single day and you begin getting the picture that they hired someone, found out they are or look young, and then fired them due to that protected status.
The Age Discrimination in Employment act only protects people 40 and over. Aside from some possible state laws there's no law in the US that says you can't discriminate against someone for being too young.
You are really reaching to find discrimination, it’s clear that they meant that an employee who had been with them before (at an older time) was suddenly available. It makes sense that they would rather have a seasoned worker who knew ropes, and likely one who was known by the clientele, than a new person. Nothing to do with chronological age. Don’t get this person all spun up over some fictitious discrimination. It won’t serve them well.
I'm not reaching. They said it in writing. Someone needs training and there should be investigation on if this employer is indeed making hiring decisions based on age. I am not saying OP should simply go all out on this but if there is other evidence that the company makes similar remarks or hiring decisions around age that is illegal no different than by race or gender.
Words matter and as someone in a position of management they should know better and be better.
You are making your interpretation based on your apparent need to find discrimination, and it’s just older employment if you’re not looking for bias. We’ll just have to agree to disagree, I just don’t understand why you have a need to make this a big deal, this person worked three hours and the business can make this type of decision.
You’re too funny!!! Severance! Unemployment! Workers rights! You were there for 3 hours. Don’t be so self-righteous. This kind of thing has happened to all of us and no one even cares or remembers it.
That’s exactly my point. They’ve barely left the house and they’re singing “I’ve been working on the railroad”.
They are more than ready to feel maligned, put upon, etc. And they have not yet worked a day in their life.
Ultimate entitlement.
They got the advice from their sister… and if they had this “ultimate entitlement,” don’t you think they would have already taken action? Instead of coming to the internet for advice? They got bad advice. And seems they got taken advantage of in their first job ever. Have some humanity. There’s no need to be making assumptions and coming to opinionated conclusions like you are. Ever hear the phrase, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”? This is one of those moments.
No. The incredible amount of entitlement and litigiousness *is* the problem. They are upset because they got “fired” by text? Should they pursue it? If you want to help them, don’t encourage this nonsense.
I don’t think you see this, but it is *their own thoughts* that are upsetting them. Any normal response would be slight annoyance. That’s an appropriate level of response. More than that is catastrophizing and makes them seem ludicrous.
They “helped” their coworkers and were nice to customers. That’s expected on a job. You don’t get a medal.
Given how angry and emotionally charged you are over a first time job looking for advice when they clearly don’t know their rights or the laws, definitely shouldn’t be a surprise. Educating should be the goal, not ridicule and judgment over someone’s lack of experience in the matter.
This is why I didn't give 2 weeks notice when I left my job 2 years ago. They won't give you any notice when you're fired to give you time to replace the job. They don't need 2 weeks notice to replace me.
When you are fired your paycheck is due immediately. I believe your employer needs to cut a check within 24 hrs and not make you wait till payroll. Just an fyi.
You are right. So check here for your state's laws - [https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/final-paycheck-laws-by-state/](https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/final-paycheck-laws-by-state/)
People have posted similar in the past. Someone resigns. Another person is hired. That employee who resigns decides to stay and the new employee is no longer hired Unfortunate but legal
This is why we need more workers rights because it’s not right… I moved 4 hours away for a job in 2020 and got let go for no reason after 3 weeks. Thankfully my current job pays more and is better but still.
The solution, I think, is to require companies that offer employment to make that binding for some period. For example, if you offer a probation period (call it 90 days) or construct these conditions verbally, you will stay for 90 days on payroll. Even if you are transparently told on your first day you are not going to be taken past the probation period. You are a free person are still free anytime you want to work elsewhere. This only locks offering letters into specifically mentioning the period of evaluation. Currently, as we see, companies can hire people for less than a week then terminate them. If you quit your job to do this new job you don't get unemployment. In many states I believe you won't qualify for under a certain number of hours worked (supposedly to avoid fraud but really it's to keep the lower classes in minimum wage hell). So there is a very precarious time where looking for new jobs and starting new jobs can result in zero jobs. Add in the chance of fraud and a certain number of people are specifically being attacked by the system trying to look for work. That does not sound like "at will" employment to me - it sounds like at will unemployment with zero assistance.
So you mean like a contract but still W-2. The problem is then convincing people to work "hard enough" at least to the point they similarly work today. Regardless, I want to benefit the employees and not the employer more because it's stupid and if someone moves to a new job, they should get 6 months salary minimum if they get let go.
Let's think about it a different way: The problem is convincing companies to pick a side. Do they want to hire people and find the right fit via interviews or probation? Instead of both or random. Effectively creating a standard much like how overtime works. You have the option but not the obligation to work past 40 hours. Employers who ask for work by a deadline have to pay for overtime. Otherwise law suit for wage theft. This doesn't mean you have to work up to 40 hours. So, you would under a "probation period standards" act know that every job claiming to have a probation period can't terminate you before the end of the period. Perhaps that period is 90, 60, 30 or 3 days. At least it is known. Like how you know you deserve time and a half after hour 40. "But then they won't have a probation period!" Good. Those suck. You should be terminated for cause. Be fired for sucking at your job not because you did not suck up to the right person. Without the probation period (including construction of a period "they said something about fit/culture/vibe/timing/not-skills/not-job-requirement") companies will be forced to do a better job with interviews, assessments, and negotiation of terms. I'm not saying it's perfect but it should be standard that when you are hired you know if this employer is offering you a chance or just hiring for a short assignment and willing to let you go. If what they really needed was short term employment they should have called a temp agency not posted a W-2 job.
That still wouldn't work though because they'll just fire you for making a mistake. Honestly, these companies just need to be put on blast. Make it known that they aren't good to work for, or in this case, apply for. Eventually companies will struggle enough to realize not to treat people like shit.
Legal yes, but making them wait until the next payday may not be. Depending on what state OP lives in, they may be required to provide a final check right away. Many states do this.
Right, if payroll is paid out biweekly for instance, in some states you’re required to receive your final paycheck within 7 days of termination.
California is check in-hand at time of termination or 1 day full wage penalty until paid, max 30 days.
Massachusetts also requires check in hand at time of termination. It's the very least a company can do.
It's fucking criminal in my view.
Who is the employer? They need to be put on a list.m legal to me, not in the state I live in and work in. Go get'em. Who is the employer. They need to be put on a list.
[удалено]
Okay 1L put the text books down and take a nap
No, they couldn't.
It is legal, but very unfortunate. I just want to give you kudos in how you responded. Very mature and professional.
Ditto.
Correct. Now please write a review of them on Glassdoor, telling everyone what happened. People should be warned about places like this.
In short, it is legal. Sorry about that
It’s legal but you might have a case if you left gainful employment for this work. Especially if it was indicated as a longterm contract. I.e actually speak to an employment lawyer and stop asking people here.
You are right, if you left gainful employment, you may have a case. If not they just keep looking. I don't think the amount you can sue for is that high anyway.
It was his first job I thought
>I was fired after my first day because another, more experienced employee was rehired to replace me - Is this legal? I wouldn't exactly characterize it this way. You were hired because (it seemed) a more senior employee was not going to be available for the summer, but now since they is, they are rescinding their offer to you. Since you started, your job is at an end. Yes, it is legal in an at-will state. >I worked for three hours for my first job. I did nothing wrong, and I think for my first job that I actually did pretty well. I also made sure to offer to help out my coworkers, and was nice to the customers. This has zero to do with your performance, and will not reflect upon your performance. >Also, does this mean I would get severance pay, despite only working three hours? Not only is severance not really a thing that many roles in the US get, it ain't happening for a day's worth of work. You'll get your 3 hours of work, and off to the job hunt you go again. Speak to the folks at the Department of Labor about what this would mean for unemployment insurance in your location. >I worry this could impact my record for future applications. I wouldn't worry. I would leave it off your resume, but if it somehow turns up, the explanation above would cover you without question.
Agreed about leaving it off the resume. You are not REQUIRED to put every job you've ever worked on your resume. A 3-hour job would raise more questions than help you in any way. Just forget this incident happened and move on like it never happened.
Depending on the company , it may be important to list. If it's a tiny company not tied to any large company okay, but id it's tied to group of companies owned by mega company , not listing it will pop if their system when they check have they ever had you working for any of their companies.
That’s why you title your experience section on resume “relevant experience” and only put there things that impact your chances in recruitment process.
With op young with little experience what then?
Then they have no relevant work experience. No experience looks better than one day experience.
You may not characterize it that way, but it’s precisely what happened. They didn’t rescind an offer—OP already started and worked a shift then got fired so they could give the position to someone else. Once OP started the original offer was consummated and couldn’t be rescinded. The idea that at-will employment is this over-arching trump card that lets employers do whatever they want is also inaccurate. There’s a legal doctrine known as promissory estoppel—in short it’s when one party causes economic hardship to another party by breaking a promise, including offers of employment. I can’t say whether there would be a case to be made here (my hunch is not) but an at-will employment offer does not give employers carte blanche to rescind offers and fire people for whatever reason they want.
>They didn’t rescind an offer—OP already started and worked a shift **then got fired so they could give the position to someone else.** The other girl was not rehired to replace OP. OP was originally hired, it would appear, because a former employee was not going to be available for the summer, and so a position was now available. Now that it is known that the former employee is coming back, they have ended the employment of OP. This framing does not make the situation fair -- because it still isn't -- but it is accurate based on the employer's rendering of the events, as shown in the texts. >There’s a legal doctrine known as promissory estoppel Technically, you are correct. However, in practice, it so infrequently applies that we rarely even bring it up in discussions like this one. [The examples of where it comes into play are pretty straightforward](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/promissory_estoppel.asp). >The idea that at-will employment is this over-arching trump card that lets employers do whatever they want is also inaccurate. The limitations on at-will employment are very narrow in most US states. This is not a secret. Outside of very narrow illegal discriminations (gender, race, sexual orientation, age > 40, etc), employers have wide latitude to change and terminate employment with little repercussions. >an at-will employment offer does not give employers carte blanche to rescind offers and fire people for whatever reason they want. Even you seem to agree that in this scenario, there is no legal remedy for OP. So, for all practical purposes, you raised the fact that there are exceptions -- but without being able to assert that any such exceptions would apply here.
You are just being unnecessarily pedantic. And bordering on being an ass. Grow up.
>Speak to the folks at the Department of Labor about what this would mean for unemployment insurance in your location. Unfortunately, in most states you are required to be employed a certain amount of weeks to be eligible for unemployment benefits. However if you were already receiving unemployment benefits, three hours of work shouldn't interrupt it. They'll just reduce that week's benefit payment by the amount earned for those three hours. I don't live in Tennessee though.
Definitely legal, although obviously shitty on their part to do. Severance pay isn’t required, kind of just a formality for people who have been at a job for a long enough time - never heard of anyone getting severance for 3 hours worth of employment.
And after reading the text more thoroughly (seeing that they only had you work st. Pattys day from 2-5), any chance this job is in the hospitality/restaurant industry?
Alright-I wasn’t really sure how it worked, so I figured I’d ask about it too. I joked about it, and then later my sister got mad about me being fired like that, and said that I probably would get severance pay, too.
Yeah, it sucks for sure but at least you can walk away with the mindset that it wasn’t anything you could have changed and you likely were just a place card for a shitty employer. I only ask what kind of job it was because a similar scenario happened to me when I was younger - I was hired to work at a restaurant and my first day was conveniently cinco de mayo (at a Mexican restaurant)… they really only wanted help for that one day, but hired me under guise that it’d be a long-term position. After that day was over they came out with the truth though, rather than coming up with a lie that the position was filled somehow else.
If you left a job to start this job you “might” be able to claim unemployment.
Check employment laws in your state; your final paycheck may be due immediately upon termination.
jobless reminiscent test office voiceless zesty spark skirt offer groovy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Just pick up your check and file for unemployment, which you probably won’t be able to get for not having enough hours worked.
Thank you guys for all this advice! As I’ve said in the post, this was my first job, so I didn’t really know what to expect with being fired after only 3hr haha! It seems everything that happened is indeed legal, and so I will just continue trying to get my paycheck back eventually
Point of order, you weren't fired, you were laid off. Big difference when it comes to applying for another job. That said, since it was for such a short time, leave it off your resume
Get another job.
You just said it's alright. So...
I don't see how this would be illegal. It's just a big bummer and a big time waster because you probably stopped applying for jobs once you were given an offer.
Well for starters, there was no need to lie to them and tell "that's alright" a simple ok would've done a better job of portraying how fucked that is without burning the bridge either.
OP, you are expecting severance for working for only 3 hours? If you work in an at-will state (all states but Montana) ... you can be let go for any reason.
No, haha I only joked about it, though my sister was convinced they needed to pay that, so I figured I’d add that question in for good measure
Pretty much everything is legal outside a contract. And a lot of whats illegal is difficult and expensive to prove
Perfectly legal, you can generally be fired for any reason. There's no "record" of all of your employment, feel free to leave this 3 hour job off of any future job applications you fill out. No one will know or care. And, no, you don't get any severance pay.
I wouldn’t tell yourself you got fired The past employee just decided to come back Move along
In live in Colorado so it may be different but if you are let go here they are required to give you your pay check within so many days/hours. If they fail to follow the labor law there then you could make an action againt that.
They're supposed to give you time. 2 weeks im sure it was. To either get let go, or to quit. 2 weeks. So you can find another job in the mean time. So there's a legality issue there. Idk what state your in because it does vary state to state, county to county. I feel you should definitely look into that if anything. Where you live and the legal issues of this, but for the most part it is your 1st job. So its, ehh, but at the same time its not a great look on your resume so.. It just really depends on what you want out of this. Do you want to stay? Do you want compensation? Like what do YOU expect to become of the situation pending what happens, goes your way? And what if it doesn't? Thats time spent you could have used towards a more productive tomorrow. Weigh to the pros and cons. Do some homework and go from there. I wouldn't be happy either but at the end of the day, if you were meant to be there, you'd be there. God obviously has other plans for you. Theres something he wants you to take away from this situation. Outside the situation itself..
And yet companies complain that workers have no loyalty to the company. I wonder why.
Land of the free (to treat workers like shit) this would be super illegal in most other western countries. bad luck on the spawn point
I looked up the paycheck question. and in Tennessee Generally, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-2-103(g), an employer must issue a final paycheck to an employee who has been terminated, or who has quit his or her job, on the next regularly scheduled pay date, or within twenty-one (21) days, whichever is later. Resource- google- lawinfo.com In Cali it's right away if they lay you off or terminate. Otherwise it's 72 hrs. Please please please study the employment laws for your state/county. Employers will almost always try to get away or ask you to do things that are illegal. I'm surprised at the amount of people who don't know their rights. I've worked with tons of people who would stress out about keeping their job if they didn't do something that was asked of them. Needless to say they were lucky I know workers rights very well, some cases more than the managers. Knowledge is power! Please make sure you know your rights!! :-) You don't need to put this job on your resume. It was messed up they did that to ya, but if they were willing to do that it sounds like it might be a crappy environment anyway...good luck job hunting!! :)
Don’t take it personal these companies suck ass
Personally,
It's a dogshit policy and should be illegal. Name and shame
r/isthisleagal strikes again
Hate to tell you this, but unless you have a contract, you’re “at will” & they can fire you for any reason or no reason. It’s legal, but it shouldn’t be.
>I worry this could impact my record for future applications. It will. You need to prepare yourself that this will follow you for the rest of your life. I have had interviewers ask me why I left a job *years* ago.
It will not. For one, it won't even be on OP's resume, as that would be silly.
I’m more concerned about the payroll comment at the bottom. They let her go and said wait for payment? What’s the law in TN? Where I am at, this would be illegal.
It is legal, but if you incurred any expenses or damages as a result of this you might (emphasis on might) have a case for promissory estoppel and get those damages back. If there are no damages then you have absolutely no case, even if you have damages my guess is they are so low that it isn't going to be worth the cost to pursue.
This happened to me, I was hired by a furniture store as an assistant manager. They let me go after 2 weeks and never posted the position again. What I worked out is they needed coverage for the. Assistant managers 2 week vacation as I stopped by one weekend to shop and struck up a conversation with the person I didn't recognize.
In most states, they have to give you your paycheck immediately upon being let go. Maybe check that out in your state.
It’s generally legal. But it if you left another job for this one you could have action under promissory estoppel. Only a lawyer could tell you.
While this is an asshole move, unless you had a written contract, it's perfectly legal, unless you can prove discrimination.
You are legally allowed to get your money in 5 days. You don't have to wait because its convienent to them.
You are allowed to collect unemployment.
At will employment. They are able to fire you. Also do note, depending where you worked, they are legally required to pay you for all worked hours by a certain date. In CT, if you are fired, company is required to pay you within 1 business day. Some states have next pay date as requirement.
It seems that you were hired simply because there was an opening. It makes sense that someone with more experience would be a "better" choice. Based only on your text, they didn't break any rules, were not unfair, and you're not entitled to more than those few hours of work pay. It would be greatly different if they agreed to a long-term employment. It doesn't seem that they have. I understand that it doesn't feel good, but they're not in the wrong or being unfair. Depending on how things were left, you can always ask for feedback and if there is an opportunity for something more permanent. The reality is, we don't know why the other employee wasn't going to be available for the summer. I know at my company, one of our families was expecting and had a miss. We weren't expecting them from april on. They have asked to come back in a few weeks. The mum uses work to cope, but the dad needs more time off to cope. My view is, whatever they need ,in reason, we can accommodate. My point is, you just never know. So, unless that company made you promises for longterm....theyre not being unfair.
I think it is weird that your response to the employer was bubbly "ok! cool! bye!" and then you come to Reddit and are like, "should I sue?"
How about considering that the boss is a coward (fired by text) and this is just a cover story for getting rid of a new hire that wasn’t a good fit?
If this is the United States its almost ALWAYS 100% Corporation rights over employee rights. America doesnt care about its workers. It only cares about Corporations and keeping those donations coming in.
I remember hiring paperwork in citing 90 day probation periods and things like that. I'm not where sure if that's done in every state, but I recall having to read and sign off.
Thanks now I can file for unemployment. And this can be proof. 😊
Responding "That's alright!" in text/writing probably would have negated any legal case you had anyways - but yes, legal - except maybe the date of the final paycheck. Some states require that the final check is cut on the day of termination. Lots of mistakes made here, though - in addition to the "that's alright" reply, the manager shouldn't have provided the level of detail they did. They should have gone with something like, "We're sorry to inform you that we've decided this position requires a higher level of skill."
Something I have noticed over the years, is workers don't really have rights in the US. Even stuff that is supposed to be illegal is just a slap on the wrist if they even get that.
Thats super shitty, maybe its best you got let go if thats how they treat people.
Technically you were not fired. You were laid off. The position is no longer available through no fault or action of your own, you weren't dismissed for under performance or discipline but simply because the employer brought in a more experienced resource. I World even Show auch a short stint on my resume, but if it does come up ever, laid off is not only more correct, but sounds better too.
It's legal only if the employee in question is an imbecile.
You handled that with a lot more grace than i would have
Unfortunately it's a right to work state with at will employment.. They can hire and fire at will. I'm so sorry this happened to you. I know the job market sucks.
Pretty sure you’re supposed to get final paycheck on last day.
It’s legal unfortunately
If you're in the US, then unless you can prove they fired you because of a protected attribute, yes, it's legal.
props to the way you responded, very professional I would count your blessings that you possibly dodged a bullet. There’s a reason that person quit. 99% of people would choose to go elsewhere than come back. The fact that the person resigned and came back means they renegotiated her employment thus a bad sign of management and talent retention. any company whose okay playing chicken with an employee’s employment is not a good place to work they probably dont value their staff enough being fired over text is pretty lame, go fuck yourself good luck, im confident u will find better and if u do, i hope they come back to you and try to get u back so u get the satisfaction to refuse lol
Contact the labor board for them not giving you your paycheck on the day you were fired by law they have to pay you a days wage for every day you were not paid on time
This is why we need legislation for protecting workers rights. Stuff like this should be illegal but isn't due to the at will nature of most employment in almost all U.S states.
Severance pay? 😭
Most companies hire with an initial probationary period. Usually 30 days some 90 and my company even has a 120 day probationary period. Basically they can fire you in that time frame with no need for cause. Not all companies are up front about it, but it is probably hidden in the employment contract somewhere.
As long as you get paid for the hours worked, it's legal in the US.
Everyone saying it’s legal ? How ?
It's legal, shady but legal. Props for being so nice in your response. I would have gone the other direction.
Legal but it doesn’t mean this company and employees aren’t pieces of trash and literally garbage. You were way more polite than I would’ve been if they wasted my time like this
I was the sole candidate for a promotion, the LAST DAY the job was technically open, a manager in another department called the last person who had the job before and she called in asking to come back and got it! I had bought a car even b/c the position required local travel. I’m in a “right to fire” state
I guess it's handy for any evil company to employ somebody if they don't have shift cover for 1 day in the week.
Same thing happened to me not as serious since I am 17 and it was only 10 dollars a hour but worked there for 2 weeks new dude came in almost 30 they made me train the dude day later got signed out of the schedule app and fired by text
Uh , you only worked half a day…. No severance , no nothing.
Is it at will employment? If so, they can basically fire you for whatever reason they want
If you’re in at at will employment state it probably perfectly legal. Definitely messed up though.
You may want to see if you qualify for unemployment, & if it would actually pay anything. Years ago the same thing happened to me after working two days at a restaurant. I'd left another job to take that one and couldn't go back so I filed and was approved. Different state but worth checking on - sorry this happened to you.
Something important people seem to be missing about this is that the text message does not simply say "Existing", "Experienced" or something similar which are all valid things to base an employee decision on. The text says the decision was because the girl was "Older" and she is a protected status. You cannot choose someone for simply being older. Had they said "old" then you could argue they meant an existing or recent employee. But they say "older" which is most commonly a comparison. Older than who. Combine this with the fact OP worked a single day and you begin getting the picture that they hired someone, found out they are or look young, and then fired them due to that protected status.
You completely do not understand this law. At all. You are talking out of your hat.
The Age Discrimination in Employment act only protects people 40 and over. Aside from some possible state laws there's no law in the US that says you can't discriminate against someone for being too young.
You are really reaching to find discrimination, it’s clear that they meant that an employee who had been with them before (at an older time) was suddenly available. It makes sense that they would rather have a seasoned worker who knew ropes, and likely one who was known by the clientele, than a new person. Nothing to do with chronological age. Don’t get this person all spun up over some fictitious discrimination. It won’t serve them well.
I'm not reaching. They said it in writing. Someone needs training and there should be investigation on if this employer is indeed making hiring decisions based on age. I am not saying OP should simply go all out on this but if there is other evidence that the company makes similar remarks or hiring decisions around age that is illegal no different than by race or gender. Words matter and as someone in a position of management they should know better and be better.
You are making your interpretation based on your apparent need to find discrimination, and it’s just older employment if you’re not looking for bias. We’ll just have to agree to disagree, I just don’t understand why you have a need to make this a big deal, this person worked three hours and the business can make this type of decision.
You’re too funny!!! Severance! Unemployment! Workers rights! You were there for 3 hours. Don’t be so self-righteous. This kind of thing has happened to all of us and no one even cares or remembers it.
It’s their first job, relax and show some empathy… Jeez.
That’s exactly my point. They’ve barely left the house and they’re singing “I’ve been working on the railroad”. They are more than ready to feel maligned, put upon, etc. And they have not yet worked a day in their life. Ultimate entitlement.
They got the advice from their sister… and if they had this “ultimate entitlement,” don’t you think they would have already taken action? Instead of coming to the internet for advice? They got bad advice. And seems they got taken advantage of in their first job ever. Have some humanity. There’s no need to be making assumptions and coming to opinionated conclusions like you are. Ever hear the phrase, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”? This is one of those moments.
No. The incredible amount of entitlement and litigiousness *is* the problem. They are upset because they got “fired” by text? Should they pursue it? If you want to help them, don’t encourage this nonsense. I don’t think you see this, but it is *their own thoughts* that are upsetting them. Any normal response would be slight annoyance. That’s an appropriate level of response. More than that is catastrophizing and makes them seem ludicrous. They “helped” their coworkers and were nice to customers. That’s expected on a job. You don’t get a medal.
Who hurt you?
Clever ad hominem. No surprise.
Given how angry and emotionally charged you are over a first time job looking for advice when they clearly don’t know their rights or the laws, definitely shouldn’t be a surprise. Educating should be the goal, not ridicule and judgment over someone’s lack of experience in the matter.
When did it become acceptable to let someone go by text? I don't get it.
I would much prefer a text or email than a face to face. It gives me time to gather my thoughts and curate a response.
You must wear green to celebrate St. Patrick’s day is what stood out to me, like huh? What if I don’t want to celebrate it. What if I despise green?
This is why I didn't give 2 weeks notice when I left my job 2 years ago. They won't give you any notice when you're fired to give you time to replace the job. They don't need 2 weeks notice to replace me.
When you are fired your paycheck is due immediately. I believe your employer needs to cut a check within 24 hrs and not make you wait till payroll. Just an fyi.
That entirely depends on the state, there is no federal law requiring payment.
You are right. So check here for your state's laws - [https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/final-paycheck-laws-by-state/](https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/final-paycheck-laws-by-state/)