So angry... Can any lawyer comment on this job loss debacle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I handle a lot of employment law and do not see a case here. It sounds like your niece wasn't a good fit, which is a perfectly acceptable reason to terminate someone.

plaintiff's side or defense side? (and what was wrong with the fit? Aren't you curious?).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I handle a lot of employment law and do not see a case here. It sounds like your niece wasn't a good fit, which is a perfectly acceptable reason to terminate someone.

Based just on a brief description of the event in the OP's post? I'd never hire you as my lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Thanks for all the replies. I think I will fly her out to stay with me for a while to calm down.

She is really upset about the "face doesn't fit" comment because she suffers from severe acne (just started Accutane recently), and is very self-conscious about it. She seems to think that they fired her literally because of her face. She once overheard the two women who were unkind to her talking about her skin, and now she's convinced that she was fired because she is "too ugly" and "no one wants to look at a face like mine." It is probably good that I am in a different country because I would like to go find her supervisor and slap him. The poor kid. I wish they had just told her a reason, or at least not said anything about a "face" at all.

I find that comment to be deeply, deeply disturbing and potentially discriminatory. Consult an employment lawyer. Not sure what the effect of whatever it is that she signed would be, though. Lawyer up.

As a PP noted above (with multiple links), that phrase means that "not a good personality fit," and has nothing to do with acne Don't fuel the fire here. Her niece got laid off because she wasn't a good personality fit. It sucks, but it's not the end of the world. She needs to focus on moving forward and finding something better, not obsess over it.[/quote


Who says? The comment could mean she wasn't pretty enough. The comment in and off itself is unclear and could mean any number of things.

Incorrect. Please click on PP's links or just google it yourself. It's a common phrase used by Brits/Australians/probably other commonwealth nations. It means that the person is not a good personality fit.

Did this happen in England/Australia or another Commonwealth nation or in America?

Right, so this guy just happened to use a phrase that in many parts of the world means "not a good personality fit" to fire someone who didn't get along with her colleagues, but what he meant was he was firing her because he didn't like her face.

what does this "many parts of the world" have to do with the way bosses speak in America. I would take the comment at face value (pardon the pun).

OP, if your niece thinks she might have been fired because of her sex or race, she should talk to an employment attorney (bearing in mind that attractiveness is not itself a protected class, so she would have to show that only women were required to be attractive to keep their jobs). Otherwise, she should take it as a learning experience and start looking for a new job.

She would not have to show that other women were required to be attractive. Let's use another example: An employer tells an African American man that his face isn't a fit. It doesn't matter if other African Americans work there. If there is an implication that he is being fired for race, sex, whatever, it matters not that other people weren't fired for those reasons. It only matters that *he* is being fired for that reason.

The comment along with the boss' inability to give any other concrete reason for firing her is enough to at least cause concern. It strikes me that HR wasn't brought in on it ahead of time because honestly, I can't imagine any HR person being okay with a manager using that phrase as the only reason for terminating an employee who has excellent performance evaluations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle a lot of employment law and do not see a case here. It sounds like your niece wasn't a good fit, which is a perfectly acceptable reason to terminate someone.[/quote]

Based just on a brief description of the event in the OP's post? I'd never hire you as my lawyer.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Thanks for all the replies. I think I will fly her out to stay with me for a while to calm down.

She is really upset about the "face doesn't fit" comment because she suffers from severe acne (just started Accutane recently), and is very self-conscious about it. She seems to think that they fired her literally because of her face. She once overheard the two women who were unkind to her talking about her skin, and now she's convinced that she was fired because she is "too ugly" and "no one wants to look at a face like mine." It is probably good that I am in a different country because I would like to go find her supervisor and slap him. The poor kid. I wish they had just told her a reason, or at least not said anything about a "face" at all.

I find that comment to be deeply, deeply disturbing and potentially discriminatory. Consult an employment lawyer. Not sure what the effect of whatever it is that she signed would be, though. Lawyer up.

As a PP noted above (with multiple links), that phrase means that "not a good personality fit," and has nothing to do with acne Don't fuel the fire here. Her niece got laid off because she wasn't a good personality fit. It sucks, but it's not the end of the world. She needs to focus on moving forward and finding something better, not obsess over it.[/quote


Who says? The comment could mean she wasn't pretty enough. The comment in and off itself is unclear and could mean any number of things.

Incorrect. Please click on PP's links or just google it yourself. It's a common phrase used by Brits/Australians/probably other commonwealth nations. It means that the person is not a good personality fit.

Did this happen in England/Australia or another Commonwealth nation or in America?

Right, so this guy just happened to use a phrase that in many parts of the world means "not a good personality fit" to fire someone who didn't get along with her colleagues, but what he meant was he was firing her because he didn't like her face.

what does this "many parts of the world" have to do with the way bosses speak in America. I would take the comment at face value (pardon the pun).

OP, if your niece thinks she might have been fired because of her sex or race, she should talk to an employment attorney (bearing in mind that attractiveness is not itself a protected class, so she would have to show that only women were required to be attractive to keep their jobs). Otherwise, she should take it as a learning experience and start looking for a new job.

She would not have to show that other women were required to be attractive. Let's use another example: An employer tells an African American man that his face isn't a fit. It doesn't matter if other African Americans work there. If there is an implication that he is being fired for race, sex, whatever, it matters not that other people weren't fired for those reasons. It only matters that *he* is being fired for that reason.

The comment along with the boss' inability to give any other concrete reason for firing her is enough to at least cause concern. It strikes me that HR wasn't brought in on it ahead of time because honestly, I can't imagine any HR person being okay with a manager using that phrase as the only reason for terminating an employee who has excellent performance evaluations.

Correct. There may be a case here and there may not be. But, I'd definitely ignore the comment of the alleged "employment lawer" above who said the assertion she was "not a good fit" is the end of the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP- it doesn't sound like there is anything to do here except move on. It's unfair.
In future, specific instances of mistreatment should be documented. Your cousin may have had a case for hostile workplace if she had documented, refused to sign the paperwork, and threatened a lawsuit. I'm not sure how it would have worked out- but under those circumstances the company may have considered more severance and a glowing letter of recommendation.

+1 I also disagree with the other PPs that it doesn't matter why she was let go. Before signing any documentation, a person should always be very clear on the nature of the termination. Is she being fired for cause? Is she being laid off?

Based on the agreement she signs, what is the employer allowed to say or not say if a future prospective employer calls them to verify her employment?

While other PPs think it's all fine and dandy, that stuff matters A LOT. Many employers are very touchy about whether or not you've been fired from a previous job. If there was no cause and they want her to sign an agreement, she should have something from them specifying that she is not being fired for cause.

She was at this job 2 years, not 2 months. When she starts applying for new jobs, they will want to call her former employer.

Like most employers, they will provide dates of employment, position last held and confirm salary, which is basically a neutral reference. The severance agreement and general release she signed likely had a mutual non disparagement clause. Lawyer speaking...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle a lot of employment law and do not see a case here. It sounds like your niece wasn't a good fit, which is a perfectly acceptable reason to terminate someone.

Based just on a brief description of the event in the OP's post? I'd never hire you as my lawyer.

(New PP here)

I'd never have you as a client.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle a lot of employment law and do not see a case here. It sounds like your niece wasn't a good fit, which is a perfectly acceptable reason to terminate someone.

Based just on a brief description of the event in the OP's post? I'd never hire you as my lawyer.

(New PP here)

I'd never have you as a client.

You probably don't work plaintiff's side in employment cases.
You couldn't if you think that pp's failure to see any issue here is good lawyering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Thanks for all the replies. I think I will fly her out to stay with me for a while to calm down.

She is really upset about the "face doesn't fit" comment because she suffers from severe acne (just started Accutane recently), and is very self-conscious about it. She seems to think that they fired her literally because of her face. She once overheard the two women who were unkind to her talking about her skin, and now she's convinced that she was fired because she is "too ugly" and "no one wants to look at a face like mine." It is probably good that I am in a different country because I would like to go find her supervisor and slap him. The poor kid. I wish they had just told her a reason, or at least not said anything about a "face" at all.

I find that comment to be deeply, deeply disturbing and potentially discriminatory. Consult an employment lawyer. Not sure what the effect of whatever it is that she signed would be, though. Lawyer up.

As a PP noted above (with multiple links), that phrase means that "not a good personality fit," and has nothing to do with acne Don't fuel the fire here. Her niece got laid off because she wasn't a good personality fit. It sucks, but it's not the end of the world. She needs to focus on moving forward and finding something better, not obsess over it.[/quote


Who says? The comment could mean she wasn't pretty enough. The comment in and off itself is unclear and could mean any number of things.

Incorrect. Please click on PP's links or just google it yourself. It's a common phrase used by Brits/Australians/probably other commonwealth nations. It means that the person is not a good personality fit.

Did this happen in England/Australia or another Commonwealth nation or in America?

Right, so this guy just happened to use a phrase that in many parts of the world means "not a good personality fit" to fire someone who didn't get along with her colleagues, but what he meant was he was firing her because he didn't like her face.

what does this "many parts of the world" have to do with the way bosses speak in America. I would take the comment at face value (pardon the pun).

OP, if your niece thinks she might have been fired because of her sex or race, she should talk to an employment attorney (bearing in mind that attractiveness is not itself a protected class, so she would have to show that only women were required to be attractive to keep their jobs). Otherwise, she should take it as a learning experience and start looking for a new job.

She would not have to show that other women were required to be attractive. Let's use another example: An employer tells an African American man that his face isn't a fit. It doesn't matter if other African Americans work there. If there is an implication that he is being fired for race, sex, whatever, it matters not that other people weren't fired for those reasons. It only matters that *he* is being fired for that reason.

The comment along with the boss' inability to give any other concrete reason for firing her is enough to at least cause concern. It strikes me that HR wasn't brought in on it ahead of time because honestly, I can't imagine any HR person being okay with a manager using that phrase as the only reason for terminating an employee who has excellent performance evaluations.

Correct. There may be a case here and there may not be. But, I'd definitely ignore the comment of the alleged "employment lawer" above who said the assertion she was "not a good fit" is the end of the matter.

The niece would have to show she was fired because she was a woman, just like the black man would have to show that he was ford bc he was black. my point was that if she was fired bc the boss thought she was unattractive (which op seemed to suggest w the acne info) that in itself is not illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP- it doesn't sound like there is anything to do here except move on. It's unfair.
In future, specific instances of mistreatment should be documented. Your cousin may have had a case for hostile workplace if she had documented, refused to sign the paperwork, and threatened a lawsuit. I'm not sure how it would have worked out- but under those circumstances the company may have considered more severance and a glowing letter of recommendation.

+1 I also disagree with the other PPs that it doesn't matter why she was let go. Before signing any documentation, a person should always be very clear on the nature of the termination. Is she being fired for cause? Is she being laid off?

Based on the agreement she signs, what is the employer allowed to say or not say if a future prospective employer calls them to verify her employment?

While other PPs think it's all fine and dandy, that stuff matters A LOT. Many employers are very touchy about whether or not you've been fired from a previous job. If there was no cause and they want her to sign an agreement, she should have something from them specifying that she is not being fired for cause.

She was at this job 2 years, not 2 months. When she starts applying for new jobs, they will want to call her former employer. [/lquote]

Like most employers, they will provide dates of employment, position last held and confirm salary, which is basically a neutral reference. The severance agreement and general release she signed likely had a mutual non disparagement clause. Lawyer speaking...

pp here (brought up hostile workplace)- if there was a "non disparagement" clause- move on. Next time, document.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle a lot of employment law and do not see a case here. It sounds like your niece wasn't a good fit, which is a perfectly acceptable reason to terminate someone.

Based just on a brief description of the event in the OP's post? I'd never hire you as my lawyer.

(New PP here)

I'd never have you as a client.

You probably don't work plaintiff's side in employment cases.
You couldn't if you think that pp's failure to see any issue here is good lawyering.

You probably are no lawyer at all, if you are providing advice on the basis on some random comments by an anonymous poster.

[Anonymous]

She should take it as a lesson on not to sign anything right away and ask for a day to look it over.
Also, she need to control the crying.
I wish her luck on her job search.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I handle a lot of employment law and do not see a case here. It sounds like your niece wasn't a good fit, which is a perfectly acceptable reason to terminate someone.

Based just on a brief description of the event in the OP's post? I'd never hire you as my lawyer.

(New PP here)

I'd never have you as a client.

You probably don't work plaintiff's side in employment cases.
You couldn't if you think that pp's failure to see any issue here is good lawyering.

You probably are no lawyer at all, if you are providing advice on the basis on some random comments by an anonymous poster.

? what advice is that? I'm saying there may be an issue here because of the comment "your face doesn't fit." She should talk to a lawyer, she may have a case.

[Anonymous]

You people are unbelievable. The agreement she signed wasn't just a confidentiality or non disparagement agreement, I'll bet all the money in my wallet it was also a release. Why? Because no employer pays 2 months severance on a tenure of 2 years without getting a release. So all this talk of "this is deeply disturbing" and bickering over whether this is discriminatory in the UK just doesn't matter. Consult a lawyer if you want, to be sure, but she's going to tell you that any claims have been released. Game over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You people are unbelievable. The agreement she signed wasn't just a confidentiality or non disparagement agreement, I'll bet all the money in my wallet it was also a release. Why? Because no employer pays 2 months severance on a tenure of 2 years without getting a release. So all this talk of "this is deeply disturbing" and bickering over whether this is discriminatory in the UK just doesn't matter. Consult a lawyer if you want, to be sure, but she's going to tell you that any claims have been released. Game over.

you're right. The OP's post does say the document she signed said she would not take any legal action.