Laid off due to elimination of position - Someone else hired

[KillyKillall]

I have a friend that was laid off approximately 60 days ago and given the explanation that the company is eliminating that position as it is no longer needed in the company. Then the company posted the same position and hired someone into it approximately 30 days later.

Isn't there some type of law around eliminating a position, laying someone off, and then hiring someone for that exact same position within 6 months or something like that?

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
I have a friend that was laid off approximately 60 days ago and given the explanation that the company is eliminating that position as it is no longer needed in the company. Then the company posted the same position and hired someone into it approximately 30 days later.

Isn't there some type of law around eliminating a position, laying someone off, and then hiring someone for that exact same position within 6 months or something like that?

Maybe they changed the job description slightly; I've seen it happen where they slightly change the duties involved with the position and rehire for it, so it is technically not the same position. He could try a wronful dismissal suit if he's that upset about it.

KT

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
I have a friend that was laid off approximately 60 days ago and given the explanation that the company is eliminating that position as it is no longer needed in the company. Then the company posted the same position and hired someone into it approximately 30 days later.

Isn't there some type of law around eliminating a position, laying someone off, and then hiring someone for that exact same position within 6 months or something like that?

I would think that your friend would be better off being "laid off" than "fired". As far as I recall, a company can terminate your employment for virtually any reason.

R

 

[FoBoT]

yeah, sounds like they did him a favor, i thought being fired was worse

 

[Cdubneeddeal]

Employment

At Will

In the majority of states, employees not working under an employment contract are deemed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it's not illegal. There are numerous illegal reasons for termination. Typically such reasons fall into one of two large categories: illegal discrimination or illegal termination in violation of a public policy. Generally, employees who work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract.

In Arizona, the employment relationship may be terminated by either the employee or the employer unless both the employee and the employer have signed a written contract to the contrary. Both the employee and the employer must sign the written contract, or the written contract must be set forth in the employment handbook, manual or any similar document that is distributed to the employee. Generally, employees who work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract.

Taken from Here. Like WA, Arizona is an "At Will" state.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: rgwalt

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
I have a friend that was laid off approximately 60 days ago and given the explanation that the company is eliminating that position as it is no longer needed in the company. Then the company posted the same position and hired someone into it approximately 30 days later.

Isn't there some type of law around eliminating a position, laying someone off, and then hiring someone for that exact same position within 6 months or something like that?

I would think that your friend would be better off being "laid off" than "fired". As far as I recall, a company can terminate your employment for virtually any reason.

R

He's fully entitled to be pissed about it, but not much more, AFAIK.

 

[KillyKillall]

I believe the employer did her the favor as well since she got a pretty good severance package, but she was doing a good job and they wouldn't have fired her. It basically looks like they used the buddy system and said, "let's eliminate this position" and then hired a buddy into it 2 months later.

 

[Mxylplyx]

In Alabama, theres only 3 reasons an employer can use to fire you.

1. A Good Reason
2. A Bad Reason
3. No Reason at all.

 

[MaxDepth]

It has happened to me three times, all of them at IBM. Thank God, I am not working for them anymore.

 

[Vic]

She might have legal recourse if she can establish some kind of discriminatory reason. Otherwise, being laid off is much better than being fired.

 

[Uppsala9496]

She can file a wrongful termination suit. Just call the EEOC and start the claim process. They will most likely find "no fault". That means she has the right to sue. She can hire a lawyer and go from there.

The company will most likely settle it as a nuisance claim and pay her to sign a waiver. I've seen these anywhere from $2,500 to $25,000. All depends on the size of the company and advice from their lawyers.

She has nothing to lose by going to the EEOC.

 

[Cdubneeddeal]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
She can file a wrongful termination suit. Just call the EEOC and start the claim process. They will most likely find "no fault". That means she has the right to sue. She can hire a lawyer and go from there.

The company will most likely settle it as a nuisance claim and pay her to sign a waiver. I've seen these anywhere from $2,500 to $25,000. All depends on the size of the company and advice from their lawyers.

She has nothing to lose by going to the EEOC.

Good luck with that. The company would fight it until the end. All the company has to do is bring up her file and find something negative. For example, calling in sick often, being late, unprofessional emails, etc. It's really easy for a company to dig up dirt..

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: rgwalt

Originally posted by: KillyKillall
I have a friend that was laid off approximately 60 days ago and given the explanation that the company is eliminating that position as it is no longer needed in the company. Then the company posted the same position and hired someone into it approximately 30 days later.

Isn't there some type of law around eliminating a position, laying someone off, and then hiring someone for that exact same position within 6 months or something like that?

I would think that your friend would be better off being "laid off" than "fired". As far as I recall, a company can terminate your employment for virtually any reason.

R

He's fully entitled to be pissed about it, but not much more, AFAIK.

And he's fully entitled to collect unemployment probably.

 

[reeserock]

Much better to be laid off than fired (which it sounds like they wanted to get kid of him anyway). I wouldn't want to work for a company thats looking for a reason o let me go.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
She can file a wrongful termination suit. Just call the EEOC and start the claim process. They will most likely find "no fault". That means she has the right to sue. She can hire a lawyer and go from there.

The company will most likely settle it as a nuisance claim and pay her to sign a waiver. I've seen these anywhere from $2,500 to $25,000. All depends on the size of the company and advice from their lawyers.

She has nothing to lose by going to the EEOC.

Good luck with that. The company would fight it until the end. All the company has to do is bring up her file and find something negative. For example, calling in sick often, being late, unprofessional emails, etc. It's really easy for a company to dig up dirt..

They don't even need to do that in an at will employement state. She has to prove that they discriminated or something like that if she wants anything done, they don't need any reason to lay her off.

 

[BoomerD]

It sux, but in most states, it's legal.

 

[RedCOMET]

that does seem very ethical for the company to do that. why can't they state the real reason for lettng somebody go?

BTW, how come the OPs friend did not try to reaaply for the job when it was relisted.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Vic
She might have legal recourse if she can establish some kind of discriminatory reason. Otherwise, being laid off is much better than being fired.

Yes, not only do you get the severance package but you don't have to explain to a potential employer why you were fired. Simply saying you were laid-off comes across much better and can generate sympathy without going into detail.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
She can file a wrongful termination suit. Just call the EEOC and start the claim process. They will most likely find "no fault". That means she has the right to sue. She can hire a lawyer and go from there.

The company will most likely settle it as a nuisance claim and pay her to sign a waiver. I've seen these anywhere from $2,500 to $25,000. All depends on the size of the company and advice from their lawyers.

She has nothing to lose by going to the EEOC.

Good luck with that. The company would fight it until the end. All the company has to do is bring up her file and find something negative. For example, calling in sick often, being late, unprofessional emails, etc. It's really easy for a company to dig up dirt..

unless they stated on paper that her position was being eliminated and she can prove they hired someone else later under the same position.

im in az, and literally we can fire on a whim. kind of sucks, but it is what it is. i was "laid off" from a job once for too many monday absences. i hadnt been absent but 1 time in the 4 years i worked there, had no redirects or official write ups against me. after it all went down and i applied for unemployment, the owner told me in confidence (idiot) that they had to let me go because i was higher paid than they could maintain. when i pointed out the discrepancies in their official reasoning, they ended up rewording the form and asking me to sign it again lol. i told them no and filed all of it with the state. they replaced me with one of the owners friends that i had been training after 2 weeks. the company has since renamed itself and tried to get rid of their rep, but i have a feeling it wont work too well.

 

[KillyKillall]

Originally posted by: RedCOMET
that does seem very ethical for the company to do that. why can't they state the real reason for lettng somebody go?

BTW, how come the OPs friend did not try to reaaply for the job when it was relisted.

She wasn't made aware. She was laid off and left the company and it wasn't really advertised that they were putting someone back in that job.

 

[TheSlamma]

It's better for a company in a will to work state to give no reason then a bogus reason.

 

[RedCOMET]

damn i misstyped what i meant to say... it should have been " that doesn't seem ethical"

stupid qwerty keyboard.

ouch. that makes sense, not knowing about the relisted position. just makes you think about how may resumes that actually got before they "found" a qualified canidate.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: RedCOMET
damn i misstyped what i meant to say... it should have been " that doesn't seem ethical"

stupid qwerty keyboard.

ouch. that makes sense, not knowing about the relisted position. just makes you think about how may resumes that actually got before they "found" a qualified canidate.

my ex applied for a few management positions in the large corp she works for, turned down for almost all of them. found out from other friends in the corp that often, uppers (vp level) will have a position open up and earmark it for their pet manager or supervisor, but they cant just give it to them. so, they post it, accept apps and review them all knowing none will be chosen. on the better side, at least they keep those apps and put them in the system for their qualifying group. theres at least a chance they may get called when another position opens up.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: RedCOMET
damn i misstyped what i meant to say... it should have been " that doesn't seem ethical"

stupid qwerty keyboard.

ouch. that makes sense, not knowing about the relisted position. just makes you think about how may resumes that actually got before they "found" a qualified canidate.

my ex applied for a few management positions in the large corp she works for, turned down for almost all of them. found out from other friends in the corp that often, uppers (vp level) will have a position open up and earmark it for their pet manager or supervisor, but they cant just give it to them. so, they post it, accept apps and review them all knowing none will be chosen. on the better side, at least they keep those apps and put them in the system for their qualifying group. theres at least a chance they may get called when another position opens up.

That's uh...every work place in the world.

Earmarking is what HR does.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: RedCOMET
damn i misstyped what i meant to say... it should have been " that doesn't seem ethical"

stupid qwerty keyboard.

ouch. that makes sense, not knowing about the relisted position. just makes you think about how may resumes that actually got before they "found" a qualified canidate.

my ex applied for a few management positions in the large corp she works for, turned down for almost all of them. found out from other friends in the corp that often, uppers (vp level) will have a position open up and earmark it for their pet manager or supervisor, but they cant just give it to them. so, they post it, accept apps and review them all knowing none will be chosen. on the better side, at least they keep those apps and put them in the system for their qualifying group. theres at least a chance they may get called when another position opens up.

That's uh...every work place in the world.

Earmarking is what HR does.

yup, i wasnt shocked. she was.