Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Layoff & re-hire question (California) California

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Layoff & re-hire question (California) California

    I was laid off about a month ago due to 'lack of projects'. With this being said, if they hire someone shortly after my layoff with the exact same title and job do i have any recourse of action here? any help is appreciated.

  • #2
    Unless you have a legally binding contract or CBA that specifically says otherwise, they have no legal obligation to rehire you.
    The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re-hire....

      I understand that re-hire is not promised, however I recall hearing that if they layoff a position/title that they cannot in 'some period' of time re-hire for the same position and title. is this a fallacy?

      Comment


      • #4
        There is no such law.
        The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by cbg View Post
          There is no such law.
          Is that based on California labor law, or a general response?

          While California is an "at will" state, most companies, and virtually all larger companies, follow a termination policy of escalating warnings, so as to establish cause. If a company with such a policy were to "layoff" an inidividual, and then promptly recreate and fill that same position, I would think that could be viewed as an attempt to skirt the normal "with cause" termination process and would provide strong grounds for a wrongful termination suit.

          Comment


          • #6
            There is no law in any state that mandates employees must be rehired if the job is reopened.

            While the situation you described could be used as supporting evidence if the employee believed he or she had been wrongfully terminated, it is not a wrongful termination in and of itself. In any state.
            The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

            Comment


            • #7
              There are 49 states...and then there is CA...and I am not well versed on CA employment law.

              But in general, in most states a company is not necessarily obligated to follow their own policies, so even if the policy is one of progressive discipline they could still go straight to term if they wanted. That would look highly suspicious if the employee committed some minor infraction for which progressive discipline would typically be followed and by strange coincidence had just filed a complaint with the EEOC and could very well be grounds for a wrongful term suit, but going straight to term would not be at all unusual if the employee had done something major like take a shot at his/her boss.

              Back to the OP's original question, besdies what CBG already mentioned there is one other situation where you might have grounds for recourse, if your "layoff" happened to have occurred after you had recently done something to assert your protected rights, such as file a complaint with the EEOC, having requested an ADA accommodation, or having used FMLA leave. Here the time proximity is a key issue; say you used FMLA five years ago and now they are laying you off doesn't sound like much of a case, but having just returned from FMLA and now they "lay you off" but look to hire someone who did just what you did...that's going to look awfully suspicious in court and the burden of proof would be on the employer to show it was not retaliation for having asserted a protected right.

              Sometimes employers simply want to fire someone, but they want to be nice so, right or wrong, they decide to call it a layoff instead. Or sometimes business conditions do legitimately warrant a layoff, and then when conditions improve the company decides they can hire someone "better" than the person they laid off. I wonder if that was not the case here?
              The only thing spammers are good for is target practice.
              No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, but a bunch of electrons and phosphors have been a tad inconvenienced.

              Comment

              Working...
              X