If employee e-mails you after being let go, should you e-mail back to send best wishes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in that position a couple of years ago. I chose not to respond. I felt really crappy about it. But I think it was the right decision.

Confused why this would be the right decision. What's wrong with you people? You're not crossing any kind of legal line by responding, you're simply showing that you're not just robots at work, you're people first and foremost. This shouldn't even be a question for someone.

Robots is what corporate America wants. Hide your emotions and smile. Replace people with h1bs Smile more

[Anonymous]

Here's the problem. Larla is trying to keep ties open with those who she thinks liked her. If you respond, you may find yourself down the road getting a call or email from her asking to be a reference or write a letter of referral for her. If you would decline such a request, then do not respond.

I've seen this happen on more than one occasion (including being in your shoes). Responding politely created an awkward situation when an employee that I was friendly with, but would not recommend or give a referral to kept the door open to ask me later. I've seen it happen to coworkers as well. So, keep that in mind when you try to be polite to a terminated employee that did not report to you.

[Anonymous]

I Link them In, and send them a nice message outside of a work email. I offer to be a reference if needed.

Of course this is if I generally like them and they provide a good work product.

[Anonymous]

Send a polite email.

"Larla, I got your email. Thank you so much for sending it to me. I wish you the very best in your future endeavours.
Regards,
XYZ"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the problem. Larla is trying to keep ties open with those who she thinks liked her. If you respond, you may find yourself down the road getting a call or email from her asking to be a reference or write a letter of referral for her. If you would decline such a request, then do not respond.

I've seen this happen on more than one occasion (including being in your shoes). Responding politely created an awkward situation when an employee that I was friendly with, but would not recommend or give a referral to kept the door open to ask me later. I've seen it happen to coworkers as well. So, keep that in mind when you try to be polite to a terminated employee that did not report to you.

This. And wouldn't that be risky in a very subtle way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the problem. Larla is trying to keep ties open with those who she thinks liked her. If you respond, you may find yourself down the road getting a call or email from her asking to be a reference or write a letter of referral for her. If you would decline such a request, then do not respond.

I've seen this happen on more than one occasion (including being in your shoes). Responding politely created an awkward situation when an employee that I was friendly with, but would not recommend or give a referral to kept the door open to ask me later. I've seen it happen to coworkers as well. So, keep that in mind when you try to be polite to a terminated employee that did not report to you.

This. And wouldn't that be risky in a very subtle way?

If that happened, the person could just say "sorry, I'm not in a position/comfortable to be a reference for you."

Not a big deal.

[Anonymous]

One of the best ways to avoid litigation is to treat people with decency and kindness whenever you can.

Employment lawyer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the best ways to avoid litigation is to treat people with decency and kindness whenever you can.

Employment lawyer

Why do you think so many fail at this, then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the best ways to avoid litigation is to treat people with decency and kindness whenever you can.

Employment lawyer

Why do you think so many fail at this, then?

Huge number of reasons -- people fail at common etiquette all the time is the biggest one. Second biggest one -- People get tangled up in "litigation avoidance" as meaning that they can't reach out and be human, as in here, which is preposterous. The very rules of evidence are actually structured against the notion that post-tort apologies and the like -- sending flowers to an accident victim in the hospital, for instance -- could be used as evidence of liability -- the rules of evidence explicitly state that such actions cannot be used as evidence of liability. Most people don't realize that such measures are harmless and encouraged by the law. Third, when lawyers get involved, people begin to legalize every situation and start running common sense notions through a legal filter. It saddens me that the notion of whether to reply to someone's goodbye email (Best of luck Larla! Keep in touch!) is being run through a litigation meter. That's crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the best ways to avoid litigation is to treat people with decency and kindness whenever you can.

Employment lawyer

Why do you think so many fail at this, then?

Huge number of reasons -- people fail at common etiquette all the time is the biggest one. Second biggest one -- People get tangled up in "litigation avoidance" as meaning that they can't reach out and be human, as in here, which is preposterous. The very rules of evidence are actually structured against the notion that post-tort apologies and the like -- sending flowers to an accident victim in the hospital, for instance -- could be used as evidence of liability -- the rules of evidence explicitly state that such actions cannot be used as evidence of liability. Most people don't realize that such measures are harmless and encouraged by the law. Third, when lawyers get involved, people begin to legalize every situation and start running common sense notions through a legal filter. It saddens me that the notion of whether to reply to someone's goodbye email (Best of luck Larla! Keep in touch!) is being run through a litigation meter. That's crazy.

Sounds like this person is running it through a careerist meter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in that position a couple of years ago. I chose not to respond. I felt really crappy about it. But I think it was the right decision.

Confused why this would be the right decision. What's wrong with you people? You're not crossing any kind of legal line by responding, you're simply showing that you're not just robots at work, you're people first and foremost. This shouldn't even be a question for someone.

Robots is what corporate America wants. Hide your emotions and smile. Replace people with h1bs Smile more

"H1bs" are people too. And, believe it or not, every topic in this forum does not need to come down to H1bs and how upset you are about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the best ways to avoid litigation is to treat people with decency and kindness whenever you can.

Employment lawyer

Why do you think so many fail at this, then?

Huge number of reasons -- people fail at common etiquette all the time is the biggest one. Second biggest one -- People get tangled up in "litigation avoidance" as meaning that they can't reach out and be human, as in here, which is preposterous. The very rules of evidence are actually structured against the notion that post-tort apologies and the like -- sending flowers to an accident victim in the hospital, for instance -- could be used as evidence of liability -- the rules of evidence explicitly state that such actions cannot be used as evidence of liability. Most people don't realize that such measures are harmless and encouraged by the law. Third, when lawyers get involved, people begin to legalize every situation and start running common sense notions through a legal filter. It saddens me that the notion of whether to reply to someone's goodbye email (Best of luck Larla! Keep in touch!) is being run through a litigation meter. That's crazy.

Sounds like this person is running it through a careerist meter.

I'm still not clear how a friendly farewell email could endanger one's career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the best ways to avoid litigation is to treat people with decency and kindness whenever you can.

Employment lawyer

Why do you think so many fail at this, then?

Huge number of reasons -- people fail at common etiquette all the time is the biggest one. Second biggest one -- People get tangled up in "litigation avoidance" as meaning that they can't reach out and be human, as in here, which is preposterous. The very rules of evidence are actually structured against the notion that post-tort apologies and the like -- sending flowers to an accident victim in the hospital, for instance -- could be used as evidence of liability -- the rules of evidence explicitly state that such actions cannot be used as evidence of liability. Most people don't realize that such measures are harmless and encouraged by the law. Third, when lawyers get involved, people begin to legalize every situation and start running common sense notions through a legal filter. It saddens me that the notion of whether to reply to someone's goodbye email (Best of luck Larla! Keep in touch!) is being run through a litigation meter. That's crazy.

Thank you for weighing in with reason. I think it must be very hurtful for people who leave a job (for whatever reason) to feel like the place just smoothly closed over upon their departure as if they were never even there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the best ways to avoid litigation is to treat people with decency and kindness whenever you can.

Employment lawyer

Why do you think so many fail at this, then?

Huge number of reasons -- people fail at common etiquette all the time is the biggest one. Second biggest one -- People get tangled up in "litigation avoidance" as meaning that they can't reach out and be human, as in here, which is preposterous. The very rules of evidence are actually structured against the notion that post-tort apologies and the like -- sending flowers to an accident victim in the hospital, for instance -- could be used as evidence of liability -- the rules of evidence explicitly state that such actions cannot be used as evidence of liability. Most people don't realize that such measures are harmless and encouraged by the law. Third, when lawyers get involved, people begin to legalize every situation and start running common sense notions through a legal filter. It saddens me that the notion of whether to reply to someone's goodbye email (Best of luck Larla! Keep in touch!) is being run through a litigation meter. That's crazy.

Thank you for weighing in with reason. I think it must be very hurtful for people who leave a job (for whatever reason) to feel like the place just smoothly closed over upon their departure as if they were never even there.

Yep. And it makes litigation more likely, not less likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I think you should. It's the kind and nice thing to do

+1