Worked for the company for 2 months.
Unexpectedly laid off. 4 people laid off. I specifically asked was the layoff due to anything I had done personally, was it due to work performance.
I was told NO by my manager and the HR Director.
HR Director said I was being terminated as some customers had terminated their contracts with the company.

4 days later I saw my job re-posted on the internet job boards.
I sent a letter to HR Director asking why my position was re-posted? And if I had in fact been let go due to lack of business/terminated contracts, why wasn't I being asked to return to my position.
HR Director said:
In your exit interview we informed you that your services were no longer
needed for this position. In making this decision, we reviewed a series
of issues facing the company. Ultimately, the decision to end your
employment after only 6 weeks was based on a combination of factors,
including performance, management's determination that you were not a good fit for the position and other factors - but not the elimination of the
position itself.

First, in the layoff meeting/exit interview, the HR Director says NO WAY was my termination due to work performance. Yet his follow up letter says that in fact it was. I was never notified that I was doing anything wrong. I was never lead to believe I was off track in any way. My manager mentioned a 30-60-90 day plan to review progress but never once spoke with me about it to define expectations or say there was a problem with my work performance.

The HR Director offered me a 6 day severance package if I sign the Separation Agreement dismissing the company of any lawsuits or any legal action.

I would like to know if there are any laws to protect against what has happened and if the company has done anything illegal. Obviously HR lied blatently to my face about why I was let go. Do I have a case? I know Colorado is an "at will" state. Does this release the employer of any liability?

If so, why do so many of the companies I have worked for have such a hard time firing people. I've worked with some real bozo's and management goes through putting the person on Performance Plans, written warnings, etc. If the employee has no recourse against the company and the company has nothing to be afraid of, why do they go through all of this trouble to terminate someone?

Legally, is it wrong for HR to lie to me, include me in a layoff due to "lack of business" then later tell me it was performance related? I wonder if that is really the reason since I was never told I had done anything wrong and I was even praised quite a few times in my 2 months of employment.

Is there anything that states they cannot re-post the position within a certian amount of time?

Should I just sign the Separation Agreement, get my 6 days of severance and forget about this? Isn't HR held to some legal standard to tell you the truth when they terminate you? I thought they had some obligation to the employee as well as the employer.

One other thing... I am the only female on the team. What type of proof is needed for an EEOC discrimination case?

Quick responses are appreciated... I have only until Friday, August 4th to have the Separation Agreement signed nd turned in or I give up the 6 days of severance pay.

You wait 10 minutes and want a response? This isn't Time-Life Books with operators "standing by". :rolleyes:

Legally, is it wrong for HR to lie to me, include me in a layoff due to "lack of business" then later tell me it was performance related? No. They can tell you whatever they want.

The HR Director offered me a 6 day severance package if I sign the Separation Agreement dismissing the company of any lawsuits or any legal action. 6 days severance is excellent for an employee of only two months. Although any clause in the agreement prohibiting you from filing a claim for unemployment would be unenforceable, I don't see that you would have a case to file for any violation of law, because I don't see one. However, you might want to get the opinion of a local attorney who has read the document in its entirety before you sign.

Is there anything that states they cannot re-post the position within a certian amount of time? No.

Employers sometimes just want to save you face. All they would have had to say is "your services are no longer required". The fact that you were the only female on the team does not, in and of itself, mean any illegal discrimination took place.

It's 2 months of employment. I'd move on.

Thanks for the info Patty. Apologies on the quick response thing - didn't mean I needed an answer in 10 minutes, just realized I hadn't put a timeframe there in the first thread so wanted to let someone know my timeframe. I understand what you are saying and yes, it's only 2 months, but I left another job for this one with the thought that it might last a bit longer than 2 months. Yes, my choice, but in the interview they never disclosed they were slimeballs.

I'm just so tired of the way employers treat employees and I really didn't do anything wrong at this job so that is why I'm ragged about it. Just think it's pretty lame that not even HR can tell you the truth.

Can you elaborate on why so many of the companies go through warnings and putting employees on performance plans, etc. in order to justify getting rid of them if the employer has nothing to worry about and can do as they please? If the employee has no recourse against the company and the company has nothing to be afraid of, why do they go through all of this trouble to terminate someone?

Thanks for your help.

One more question... for Colorado Unemployment Benefits, they go back 14 months to decide the benefit. For instance, I quit my previous job to move on to the 2 month/layoff job. Since I didn't get laid off from the job 14 months ago and quit voluntarily, I'm not eligible for unemployment. Why doesn't the company that laid you off have to pay the benefit, regardless of how long you were there? Afterall they DID lay you off.

** 5 minute responses appreciated... :D just joking....

Can you elaborate on why so many of the companies go through warnings and putting employees on performance plans, etc. in order to justify getting rid of them if the employer has nothing to worry about and can do as they please? If the employee has no recourse against the company and the company has nothing to be afraid of, why do they go through all of this trouble to terminate someone?

Because some employers like to treat their employees fairly and give them a chance to improve. Because it is in many cases cheaper and easier to rehabilitiate a failing employee than to start over from scratch.

Why doesn't the company that laid you off have to pay the benefit, regardless of how long you were there? Afterall they DID lay you off

Because that's not how the law in your state is written. You'll have to ask your state legislature if you want to know why they didn't write it differently.

One more question... for Colorado Unemployment Benefits, they go back 14 months to decide the benefit. For instance, I quit my previous job to move on to the 2 month/layoff job. Since I didn't get laid off from the job 14 months ago and quit voluntarily, I'm not eligible for unemployment. Why doesn't the company that laid you off have to pay the benefit, regardless of how long you were there? Afterall they DID lay you off.

** 5 minute responses appreciated... :D just joking....
If you were not employed going back 14 months, it doesn't mean you are not eligable for benefits. In Colorado you have to have grossed $2,500 to be eligable for UEI benefits, whether you recieve them or not will be up to the state.

Can you elaborate on why so many of the companies go through warnings and putting employees on performance plans, etc. in order to justify getting rid of them if the employer has nothing to worry about and can do as they please? If the employee has no recourse against the company and the company has nothing to be afraid of, why do they go through all of this trouble to terminate someone?

Because some employers like to treat their employees fairly and give them a chance to improve. Because it is in many cases cheaper and easier to rehabilitiate a failing employee than to start over from scratch.


Agreed. Also, some companies are in a lot of states and might have a number of decentralized offices. Rather then try to have the local managers guess at what they think the rules are for their state, some companies get very formal and use procedures that managers who are not expert in the labor law of their specific state can follow. Big companies can have hundreds or thousands of supervisors/managers, most of whom are not expert in labor law.

Good point, DAW.