Hi. I'm writing because my boyfriend, who lives in Minnesota, was recently given the option to get demoted, take a pay cut by half and be under someone he can't stand, or quit. It's obvious that they don't want to fire him because they don't want to pay him severance and don't want a racial lawsuit on their hands. But they have been making people leave left and right throughout his dept. He refuses to have that person he can't stand as his supervisor, so he told them to give him 30 days and he'll quit. The company is hurting financially. He's been with the company for over 6 years, almost 7. I told him to ask about severance pay, because if he quits he can't even get unemployment! Are there any rights that he has?? Are they allowed to give him those options? Do his managers have to consult with HR before giving him those options??
Thank you very much for your time.
Michelle

No state requires severance pay. And you are correct that if he quits, he most likely would not qualify for UI benefits either. Should the managers consult with HR? Of course, but it is not required.

One thing that did concern me though is the comment about racial harrassment. Can you provide more details about that? It MAY have an impact on the answer.

Don't they have to have a certain percent of minorities working? He's the only black person in corporate. Actually he's trinidadian, but the day they hired him they told him to put black. Everyone else is white. I don't think racial discrimination is a problem though. What I meant by that is that I think they don't want to fire him because he's a minority, and they wouldn't want him to say he was discriminated against and file a lawsuit. Even though I'm not sure he can sue at all. But they are making him quit. It's not volunary. Is there anything he can do, such as with HR or a lawyer? It should be a layoff. Other people in the company that have gotten laid off and fired got severance. So the company does give it.
Thanks,
Michelle

No. Employers do not have racial quotas that must be met. If they are afraid of a suit, that may be why they are doing what they are doing. But, based on what you have posted, it's not illegal.

But couldn't the person in question simply state that neither option is acceptable? Saying that he does not quit, but that he does not accept a pay cut, therefore forcing them to either drop the issue or fire him (therefore qualifying for unemployment)? May seem a little simple, but wouldn't that work, since there is an agreement in place to work X amount for Y amount?

He could try that, but there's no guarantee it would go his way when it came to unemployment benefits. Being fired is not a guarantee of UI being granted. What you suggest could conceivably be viewed as either misconduct or insubordination, both of which are reasons for disqualification of benefits. It would all depend on the specifics and on the adjudicator, so it could go either way, but it's not a gamble I'd be willing to take.

Misconduct or insubordination? No, it could not be considered either, not by the wildest stretch of the imagination. It is refusing to renegotiate an already agreed upon wage, which he is not required under any circumstance to do. The only exception is if he signed documentation that his wage is subject to change at the discretion of the company. How is it insubordinate? You had an agreement in place. You can not then be forced to accept less than the agreed upon rate, and then be held responsible for their inability to live up to the agreement. They would have to proactively fire him. They can state his refusal to take a cut in pay, put what that is in reality is the employers refusal to pay what he agreed. There is never any guarantee you will receive UI benefits, but this is his best course of action. Especially when it has already been stated that the alternative is quitting and being 100% sure of NOT receiving benefits. Also, you CAN quit and still receive benefits if the reason for your quitting is one that is found to be reasonable and the fault of the employer. Not a gamble you would take? A chance at getting benefits, vs no chance at all. Remind me to invite you over for poker sometime.

I don't agree, but then it doesn't matter what either of us thinks. The only one whose vote would count is that of the adjudicator.