termination
6381572
1 Post
We have an employee in an exempt, supervisory position that was accused of embezzlement and was placed on suspension without pay. In court yesterday she was found not guilty because there was no evidence to convict her but the CEO is undecided on whether or not he needs to compensate her for the time she was put on unpaid leave or if he should re-instate her at all!
Any opinions??
Comments
We have an employee in an exempt, supervisory position that was accused of embezzlement and was placed on suspension without pay. In court yesterday she was found not guilty because there was no evidence to convict her but the CEO is undecided on whether or not he needs to compensate her for the time she was put on unpaid leave or if he should re-instate her at all!
Any opinions??
[/quote]
By "not guilly" I assume you are saying there were criminal charges filed and her case was thrown out for lack of evidence. Is that correct? The criminal standard of evidence is "beyond all reasonable doubt." That's a very high standard. An employers' standard for termination does not have to be as high as that of a criminal court. But think about this: In a civil court, for most things, a plaintiff only has to show that it is more likely than not that the defendant did whatever they're being sued for. Would your company prevail in a civil trial for the amount embezzled? That is, would most people agree with you that it is more likely than not that she embezzled? If so, then most people would agree that discipline was called for.
If not, would your company normally fire someone who was probably not responsible for wrongdoing? If you don't normally fire people on thin suspicion, what sort of position does that put your company in if you fire this employee? What would happen if she says she was fired for something else (e.g., age, race, religion, etc.)? "They never fire people on a whim, so they set up that embezzlement accusation hoping I would just leave. They just want to get rid of me because I'm <race/age/religion/etc.>!!!"
Talk to an attorney, I'm sure you wouldn't be able to give us enough information here.
[quote user="lasershot"]I have a question regarding TX pay laws. I can't find the answer. If an employee shows up for work and is sent home due to electrical outages and an hour later is called back in when the outage is fixed but decides not to return due to the distance from home... is there an amount of hours you MUST pay a non-exempt employee? I'm from CA and you have to pay a minimum amount of hours but I can't seem to find anything in the TX laws.
[/quote]
I am not aware of any minimum hour requirement in Texas. I believe it is a minority of states that have a minimm hours requirement (CA, IL, maybe MA?)