I was into a job for 4 weeks when I was terminated, ostensibly for performance, though I am disputing that. However, for the moment, that is not where my question lies.

When an employee is terminated, are there any documents that the law requires the employee sign? I was given no papers to sign relating to the end of employment. This is a first for me. I've always had to sign documents when I have left, voluntarily or otherwise.

Also, at what point should I consider filing a complaint for my former employer not allowing me to review my employment records? I was released on 11/19, and have requested several times that I be permitted to review my employee records. Thus far, they have refused to acknowledge the requests. I sent them a request again today.

Thank you...

The only papers your former employer should be giving you is your last check. They are not required to give you termination papers or allow you to view your HR file

Doesn't California Labor Code Section 1198.5 specifically state that I DO have the right to review my employee file?

I received an email from the company indicating that I am being sent the complete file. However, there are emails from my manager that I want but they will not reply, which directly relate to my employment there. I am wondering how I can obtain those.

California law requires that employers allow employees and former employees access to their personnel files and records that relate to the employee’s performance or to any grievance concerning the employee. Cal Labor Code Section 1198.5 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=01001-02000&file=1171-1205) Inspections must be allowed at reasonable times and intervals. To facilitate the inspection, employers must do one of the following: (1) keep a copy of each employee’s personnel records at the place where the employee reports to work, (2) make the personnel records available at the place where the employee reports to work within a reasonable amount of time following the employee’s request, or (3) permit the employee to inspect the records at the location where they are stored with no loss of compensation to the employee.

Do those records include things like emails? Their HR chief tells me electronic communications are not covered. I want to get a couple of emails from my manager showing that it wasn't until I was out sick for two days that I was suddenly expendable- even though I had a doctor's note to accompany.

Unless your absence was covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act, which is wasn't as you hadn't worked there long enough, a doctor's note has no force in law and the employer was not obligated to accepted. Missing two days when you've only been on the job for four weeks is a legal reason to terminate you under those circumstances.

I went to the E.R. at my manager's insistence. I had told her I could wait. That's one reason I want the emails- in them, she told me not to be concerned about going, that it was okay.

If the E-Mails are not privileged, if the E-Mail concern a grievance about the employee my guess would be no the employer has to turn it over.

1198.5. (a) Every employee has the right to inspect the personnel
records that the employer maintains relating to the employee's
performance or to any grievance concerning the employee.

What would constitute a privileged email?

Poster I will P.M you. These answers from Panther and Marketeer are atrocious.
Read posts by joec:
http://www.laborlawtalk.com/member.php?u=46661

You can post on his site:
http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/forum.htm


LLT is bogus site:
http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/website-review-f16/the-truth-about-laborlawtalkcom-federal-injunction-courtesy-business-wire-t52.htm

LLT is for the employer not the employee cbg, EllMd, Mlane58 and PattyMd are idiots:

http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/website-review-f16/you-know-where-they-work-laborlawtalkcom-ellmd-is-stupid-cbg-is-a-dictator-t76.htm

Notinkeys, even if you are granted copies of the e-mails, I'm not sure what difference it will make. You had not worked for the employer anywhere near long enough to have protected medical leave available; therefore even if you could prove conclusively that you were fired for taking the two sick days it would not make the termination illegal.

I was surprise to hear about the grievance portion Cal Labor Code Section 1198.5.

Normally what I hear in HR is the employee can have a copy only of any document they actually sign and a term'd employee getting copies of email correspondence sounded like a stretch.

I guess there are different standards for 'inspecting' and 'having a copy', or the signed document standard just a common misconception?

Psy, here is a link to the California website explaining it:

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_RightToInspectPersonnelFiles.htm

It includes a link to the law itself.

Well that is what the law says good luck getting an interoffice E-Mail. If it reached a lawsuit in theory the hard drive could be discoverable with the exception of anything privileged.

Notinkeys, even if you are granted copies of the e-mails, I'm not sure what difference it will make. You had not worked for the employer anywhere near long enough to have protected medical leave available; therefore even if you could prove conclusively that you were fired for taking the two sick days it would not make the termination illegal.
My attorneys have told me otherwise, for additional reasons not specified in my post (and for which I will not state here.) As stated elsewhere, I was told specifically to go to the hospital, and I was told it was not something I should be concerned about as it related to my employment. My choice was to stay at work; my manager would not permit that.

If you have an Attorney why are you here?

To ask questions.

:rolleyes: Right ask questions you could ask your Attorney who has the additional info you arent telling us! Not saying you should just that if you want answers you need to provide the needed info. That said if you have an Attorney that should be your source of info

We can only respond to the information you provide. If you do not give us all the facts then our answers will obviously not take that information into consideration.

If you have an attorney it would be highly inappropriate for us to answer anything further. You need to be getting your answers from them.

Actually, at this point, I haven't discussed anything further with my attorney and only did so briefly at the time this occurred.

My attorney, like all of us, likes to be compensated for his knowledge and skill. As someone whose unemployment doesn't even cover the rent, much less other costs associated with life, I have no desire to add to my financial burden.

If you have an issue with my asking basic questions here, then so be it. I came here to determine some basic information, not to get involved in a junior high pissing match between egos.

If that's how you see it, that's up to you. But we have no business interfering with what your attorney is telling you. And it stands to reason that we cannot give you accurate information if you are not planning to give us all the facts.

cbg, you should note in my original message, I asked only about rights to my records, and how long it should take. I have asked nothing about the specifics of my situation; I only furnished some background to be able to determine the proper answers relative to my records and rights.

I am exactly following the instructions of my attorney. He advised that at this point I needed to follow a specific path and that for now, there was no need to legal action. I am looking for the best documentation available to be able to support any claims I make against my former employer. I would prefer to resolve this without resorting to further legal maneuvering. I haven't the money for it. I don't have the money for my house that's due in two days; lawyers are low on my list of expenses.

Then I would suggest that you contact the DLSE. I don't have my cheat sheet handy on how long the employer has to respond to a request for records but I would imagine that nearly six weeks would be quite long enough.

I was surprise to hear about the grievance portion Cal Labor Code Section 1198.5.

Normally what I hear in HR is the employee can have a copy only of any document they actually sign and a term'd employee getting copies of email correspondence sounded like a stretch.

I guess there are different standards for 'inspecting' and 'having a copy', or the signed document standard just a common misconception?
If that is what they are telling you then thats all you hand over nothing changes that. They are the ones liable not some guy in H.R.