With or With Cause Definition

bgreene · October 2003

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 10-09-03 AT 11:04AM (CST)[/font][p]Help - please give clarity on definition with or without cause for termination of employment.

gillian2 · October 2003

You should review the thread about Employment at Will of a few days ago. If termination of employment is based on "just cause" or with cause then the employere is operating in "just cause" employment relationship and the employer defines the reasons that are "just cause" for termination. If the employer operates under "employment at will" there is no definition of just cause because to do so negates employment at will. The employer does one or the other.

bgreene · October 2003

We terminated an employee who worked for us for about 9 days. At the time we told him he was being let go due to a lack of basic skill sets. We have all the at will language in his employment agreement and our handbook. My view was it was without cause but the President views this as cause? Please let me know your thoughts.

Don D · October 2003

If the employee did not have the requisite skills for the position and was not able to do the job because of a basic lack of knowledge or expertise or ability, then the President was right in his assessment of 'skill set'. Just cause basically means you have a defensible, recorded reason for the termination and can recite a basis for having such a requirement to begin with. This only comes into play when you are challenged in some venue like unemployment insurance appeal, EEOC, one of the other labor law enforcers, or perhaps a court of law.

bgreene · October 2003

Thank you for your response. When would it be viewed as without cause - when a specific reason was not given?

Steve McElfresh · October 2003

bgreene,

It would help a great deal if shared the "So what?" of your question. Is this a question of contesting UI? Re-employment opportunity? Paying the company back for training or materials? Fear of having changed the at-will status? Semantic BS between you and the Pres? Or . . . ?

Your answer, and any relevant facts, will make any responses more useful.

Steve Mac

Steve McElfresh, PhD
Principal & Founder
HR Futures
408.605.1870

bgreene · October 2003

Actually the story is too drawn out - but I appreciate your input. My main concern was taking out of at-will status. Thanks,

Steve McElfresh · October 2003

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 10-09-03 AT 12:54PM (CST)[/font][p]Thanks for the clarification. This is easier. If you have the standard language in all relevant documents (". . . for any reason or no reason at all . . .", " . . . can only be changed in writing by the Pres. . ."), then it is difficult for me to imagine how stating a cause for term could affect your at-will status. Indeed, if you use progressive discipline to try to turn around performance, such employees will always know the reason for the term. As they should.

You and the Pres. are both right. The person was term'd for cause (i.e., for a reason), as the Pres. says. But that does not change the fact that you are an at-will employer, as you say/wish. So long as you have not communicated that terms -- of employees generally or of any specific employee -- will ONLY be "for cause", I don't see the issue.

I'm not going to get into whether a term for not having the skills is "just cause" or not, as it simply isn't the point of your question.

Of course, this is not legal advice and you need to talk to someone with malpractice insurance to be certain.

Regards,

Steve Mac

Steve McElfresh, PhD
Principal & Founder
HR Futures
408.605.1870

With or With Cause Definition

Comments