Hi all,

Just a quick question on what may or may not be a nuance of the law
surrounding at-will employment:

If I understand at-will employment correctly, an employee can be
terminated for any reason whatsoever provided that it is not
considered discriminatory. I'm curious to know, however, when the
reasons provided for termination are based on accusations that are
actually false (i.e. employer claimed that employee did something to
warrant their termination but the employee did not, in fact, do such
and such thing) does that change the equation at all?

Thanks in advance-

"Matthew Groch" <mgroch@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:61c912ed.0411091608.7ce4a014@posting.google.c om... Hi all, Just a quick question on what may or may not be a nuance of the law surrounding at-will employment: If I understand at-will employment correctly, an employee can be terminated for any reason whatsoever provided that it is not considered discriminatory. I'm curious to know, however, when the reasons provided for termination are based on accusations that are actually false (i.e. employer claimed that employee did something to warrant their termination but the employee did not, in fact, do such and such thing) does that change the equation at all?

Yes, that changes the equation. To begin with, the employee has the
burden of proof that discrimination (or some other illegal reason) was
the motivation for termination. But if the employer provides a false
reason, and it's proven to be false, that allows the judge or jury to
accept the implication that the true reason must have been something
worth hiding. That doesn't officially change the burden of proof, but
it has that effect. Many employers have been clobbered because of
lies about the reason.

McGyver

On 10 Nov 2004, "McGyver" <Greyprof@msn.com> wrote:
"Matthew Groch" <mgroch@gmail.com> wrote: [ Assuming as I do that an "at will" employee may lawfully be terminated for no reason even on an aribtrary whim or for pretty much any reason p roviding that it is not the sort of discrimination specifically prohibited by law does the equation change at all when the employer chooses to give reasons for the discharge which, however, are false, e.g., that the employee did something to warrant his or her termination which, in truth, s/he did not do? ] Yes, that changes the equation. To begin with, the employee has the burden of proof that discrimination (or some other illegal reason) was the motivation for termination. But if the employer provides a false reason, and it's proven to be false, that allows the judge or jury to accept the implication that the true reason must have been something worth hiding. That doesn't officially change the burden of proof, but it has that effect. Many employers have been clobbered because of lies about the reason.

What "McGyver" says above has been sometimes so -- at least in Calif.,
were he practices law, and, in some cases in a few places elsewhere in
the U.S. -- and his response at least does (sort of) answer the OP's
question, if that question is read at once literally and narrowly (re.
which, see the OP's "at all") although, in actuality, the OP has not
made sufficiently clear what sort of "equation" s/he refers to or what
"change" therein would be significant for him her her.

One can't actually tell just from the OP's question whether the
scenario of most interest to the OP actually concerns what the
discharged employee claims to be law-prohibited "discriminatory"
behavior which the employer tries to conceal or deflect from by the
false reasons given ("His real reason for discharging me was his
dislike for my religion and nationality, and an inference to that
effect is warranted by the further circumstance the other 'reason' he
advances as justification for my firing is pretextual because, in
fact, it is false!") or whether the query's primary focus is whether
reinstatement or some sort of breach of contract damages or, unrelated
to reinstatement, some sort of contemplated tort claim (e.g.,
defamation dmages) is of most concern to the OP.

The OP ought note, too, that because Calif. law provides for
comparatively more direct and indirect protection for "at will"
employees than most other U.S. states (a combination of statutorily
provided for rights to access to one's personnel file and of
"no-blackballing" protections and a comparatively remedially "liberal"
use by the courts of tort law principles), the "McGyver" response
above probably would not apply elsewhere (unless, possibly, one
construes it to apply mostly to an employer's attempted defense by
resort on the false "reasons" to an unlawful discrimination in
employment claim - assuming, again, that that is the sort of scenario
to which the OP actually refers).

But that there may be an an arguably redressable claim for, e.g.,
"defamation" (depending to whom the employer communicated the
"reasons" that were "false" and with what if any adverse effect) or by
reason of some (if there is one) applicable statutory provision does
not transmute an "at will" relationship into one not that not that;
although, correlatively, it is possible (as has also occurred in a few
cases) that the very giving of "reasons" for a discharge when
considered in full context of the relationship can help provide the
basis for a claim contravening the premise apparently assumed as a
"given" by the OP, that the employee at issue was actually no more
than one "at will" (although, even then, including in Calif., it is
not always so that an employee the private sector agreed would be
dischargeable only "for cause" will be able to recover "wrongful
discharge" damages on a showing merely that the "cause" for discharge
as claimed by the employer did not in fact exist if the employer is
able at least to show that the employer at least had a good faith
belief that the [even if actually false] reason was true).

In other words, and as almost always (alas!) is so, the real life
answers to the OP's queries will depend on, first, what s/he wants to
know in what context (exactly), second, on the answer to the "where?"
question, and, third, and on all the other relevant/operative
underlying realistically provable facts.

But as a general matter (i.e., again, without knowing more about the
specific context and contemplated claim against the employer) giving
even deliberately false "reasons" for the discharge of an "at will"
employee, standing alone, does not necessarily "change the equation"
(at all).

I am a bit lost on this one - what is OP? Opening Person?

Original poster. But since this thread is from 2004, I wouldn't worry about it.

So, in an at-will employment state such as Tennessee do you stand a chance if wrongfully fired. My husband was fired after 18 yrs at the same company. The reason they gave him was a violation of their Health & Safety policies and stated they have a zero-tolerance policy. They stated he had an employee who had had some accidents at work that were never reported. This employee was on light duty and filing workman's comp at the time of his firing. She stated "I don't know why you're bothering with this, you've never reported any other accident I've had". My husband stated to her "You've never reported any other accidents to me". She stated "Yes, I have" so his boss fired him after 18 yrs. The strange thing to me is that my husband had safety meetings every month, and after the meeting each employee was given a paper that states something to fact that " I have not been discriminated against in anyway, nor do I have any problem with any (name of company) employee at this time" She signed these papers every month and never reported any problems. The other thing you should know is that my husband was an area manager for this company here in the area we live. His boss(the regional manager) is located about 300 miles from us, so he was never around on a day to day basis to see what was going on. My husband's human resource manager is in Houston TX. We are in TN. His boss and the HR manager just showed up in town one day out of the blue and fired him stating he never reported accidents this particular employee stated she had had in the past. Another thing. This particular employee(N) and another employee(W) have been trying for a long time to get rid of my husband. N's husband is best friends with W. N & W used to hang out at the local convience store during work breaks. N set W up with a girl that worked there. Next thing you know, the girl that W was dating accused my husband of slapping her on the *** in the store one day. This was the start of them trying to get my husband fired. His boss and a prior HR manager came into town to view tapes from the video cameras in the store. My husband swore to them he had never even talked to the girl, let alone slap her ***. All he ever did was stop and buy a cup of coffee. I told him let them view the tapes if all they see is him at the counter to get a cup of coffee they have no basis to fire him. However, they more or less forced him to write a letter to the girl stating he was sorry if anything he had ever said/done in the store that offended her. His boss told him if he wanted this to go away he had to write this letter. I KNOW, BIG MISTAKE. He never should have wrote the letter and should have stood strong of his innocence, but they had him scared that if he didn't write it he wouldn't have a job. Another thing all of this supposedly happened around 6:30 am before he even started work at 7. it wasn't like it happened on company time. I just truly believe these two employees have been gunning for him to be fired and have been calling HR and making all kinds of false accusations. However we have been told nothing more that violation of health & safety for no reporting accidents. Another thing about his boss. HE fired my husband on health & safety issues stating it is of highest priority to this company. However, in Feb. when my husbands boss did a safety audit on my husband, he gave him a list of safety items needed(goggles, exit signs, etc). My husband stated he would get them ordered right away. His boss then stated, NO, wait until April it's the beginnnig of the new fiscal year. SO MUCH FOR THE IMPORTANCE OF HEALTH & SAFETY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wastewaterman, you stated your problems on your own thread and they were answered accordingly. Replying in a post that is over two years old is not going to help. We understand the frustration with what happened to you, but unfortunately unless your husband and father in law can prove they were fired for retaliation or due to some characteristic protected by law, nothing the company did was illegal.