|
For Illinois,
If a salaried worker is never given an employee handbook or is not informed
of companies policies and procedures, then is laid off and asked to sign a
waiver (release states "foregoing payment is a benefit to which former
employee would not be entitled under the company's established policies,
plans, and procedures and that these benefits constitute extra benefits in
exchange for former employee signing this agreement") when offered
severance, is that merit for pursuing in a court of law?
Since former employee never received a handbook, former employee was never
formally informed of proper procedures and plans.
|
| |
| |
The handbook is an important legal document for the company. I heard of a
company that delayed a layoff until they could get the handbook completed,
for what exact reason I don't understand. Your company might have asked
each employee to sign a paper acknowledging receipt of the handbook, and if
others signed and you did, you have a complaint but I sort of doubt it means
they can't lay you off. If you have already signed the agreement to receive
severance, the company's lawyer who wrote the agreement made sure that your
rights are now terminated. If you have not yet signed, write them a letter
and explain your hardship and give a sob story and say that more severance
pay will make things better. Pretend to be unconcerned with their deadline.
I helped somebody is a similar situation. Want to meet me at www.
masterletterwriter.com ?
For Illinois,
If a salaried worker is never given an employee handbook or is not
informed
of companies policies and procedures, then is laid off and asked to sign a
waiver (release states "foregoing payment is a benefit to which former
employee would not be entitled under the company's established policies,
plans, and procedures and that these benefits constitute extra benefits in
exchange for former employee signing this agreement") when offered
severance, is that merit for pursuing in a court of law?
Since former employee never received a handbook, former employee was never
formally informed of proper procedures and plans.
|
| |
| |
The agreement has not been signed, and she did not sign-off saying she
received a handbook.
She has already been laid off, and tried to bargain for bigger severance but
was denied.
The question is, is there legal cause to pursue in court for not receiving a
handbook?
Tough situation, yes.
The handbook is an important legal document for the company. I heard of a
company that delayed a layoff until they could get the handbook completed,
for what exact reason I don't understand. Your company might have asked
each employee to sign a paper acknowledging receipt of the handbook, and
if
others signed and you did, you have a complaint but I sort of doubt it
means
they can't lay you off. If you have already signed the agreement to
receive
severance, the company's lawyer who wrote the agreement made sure that
your
rights are now terminated. If you have not yet signed, write them a letter
and explain your hardship and give a sob story and say that more severance
pay will make things better. Pretend to be unconcerned with their
deadline.
I helped somebody is a similar situation. Want to meet me at www.
masterletterwriter.com ?
informed
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:49:49 GMT Confused in Illinois <nomail@nospam.com> whittled these words:
For Illinois,
If a salaried worker is never given an employee handbook or is not informed
of companies policies and procedures, then is laid off and asked to sign a
waiver (release states "foregoing payment is a benefit to which former
employee would not be entitled under the company's established policies,
plans, and procedures and that these benefits constitute extra benefits in
exchange for former employee signing this agreement") when offered
severance, is that merit for pursuing in a court of law?
There is a lot missing from this story. Is
there a law requiring an employee get an employee handbook? Likely not,
but better find out as that is material to evaluating the issue. Is
there a law requiring an employee to be informed of company policies and
regulations? Usually there are some requirements for posting some things
- check with the state's department of labor. Otherwise there is
probably no general law requiring "informing" of policies. Whether an
employee was or was not informed of policies is likely material to some
rights and some actions but it is unlikely that merely failure to inform
will be actionable.
Since former employee never received a handbook, former employee was never
formally informed of proper procedures and plans.
Well so what? I don't mean that in the attacking sense, but to evaluate
whether there is any liability issue the essential question is likely to
be - and what harm did that cause?
If we assume that the employee WAS issued a handbook but otherwise
everything was the same how would that change make a difference? Let's
say, for the sake of argument, that the response is "well, then I
wouldn't have signed the waiver." But the next legal question is likely
to be "Was the person *actually* harmed by signing the waiver.?
If there was a handbook or written procedures were those procedures
actually followed regardless of employee's knowledge or lack of
knowledge?
In most cases the lie has to make a difference before it is actionable.
If they were duped into signing away a valid cause of action - then there
is possibly some legal recourse. But if there wasn't a valid cause of
action then whether they did or did not sign the waiver made no
difference and thus no harm.
It is always possible that a law would be in place that would punish
obtaining a waiver through false statements regardless of intent or harm
caused. Again the Department of Labor for the state will have that
information. Their job is enforcement of labor law, not employement law,
so if there is no statute covering the issue it is likely beyond the
scope of their involvement.
Do you have a cause of action? Can't tell with the facts stated. You
might want to start with the Department of Labor. Their FAQs and
information might help you. This kind of forum is really not very useful
in evaluating this kind of legal rights. You will get far more useful
information speaking in real time with a real person who is specifically
familiar with the law in your state. Real time conversations are much
better at gleaning out those important details that make the critical
difference.
Diane Blackman
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, "Confused in Illinois" <nomail@nospam.com> wrote:
If a salaried worker in Illinois is never given
an employee handbook or otherise informed
of employer policies and procedures, then is
laid off and is asked to sign a waiver (release
states "foregoing payment is a benefit to which
former employee would not be entitled under
the company's established policies, plans, and
procedures and that these benefits constitute
extra benefits in exchange for former employee
signing this agreement") when offered severance,
is that merit for pursuing in a court of law?
To say (even if correctly) that the about to be former employee in
question had not previously been given a "handbook" or the other
information to which you refer is not to say that the employee did not
know (let alone that s/he should not have known) what his/her agreed
wages (including, if earlier agreed, "severance") were.
You imply that the person in question does not know (because s/he had
earlier chosen not even to ask?) whether the severance now offered (on
condition that s/he sign the requested release) is in actuality a
benefit "to which [s/he] would not be entiled under the company's
established policies, plans, and procedures" BUT, even if so, you
neglect to explain why that person would consider "pursuing in a court
of law" a claim that s/he IS entitled to that (or any other) benefit
if s/he does not know the answer to that question. In other words, if
(seriously?) in doubt, why not just (indeed: quite simply!) ask?
Since former employee never received a
handbook, former employee was never
formally informed of proper procedures
and plans.
It ought be obvious to you that whether "pursuing in a court of law" a
claim that the employee is owed wages (possibly, including severance,
IF previously agreed) or some other benefit earned but not paid would
have "merit" would depend on the employee clearly alleging and then,
if the allegation in issue were disputed, proving whatever it was the
employer had agreed but failed or refused to do.
Rather than being "confused" you seem instead just to be fearful that
signing a release will foreclose a right otherwise to sue for and
recover on claims of which, however, the person in question has chosen
not be to be aware, although, while you correspondgingly further
choose not report (nor even hint at) what you (realistically) believe
such claims probably could be, nonetheless also ask others, who
(necessarily) know far less than you about the agreed terms/conditions
of employment, to evaluate the "merit" of those very unknown (and,
anyway, here unstated) claims.
Taking into account the costs, in dollars and delay, and uncertainties
of "pursuing in a court of law" any claim, the person in question
therefore might want to ask (and answer) for himself or herself:
As a PRACTICAL matter, in terms of real-life
LIKELIHOODS, what, probably, will s/he gain
that s/he will not otherwise have and
(REALISTICALLY) probably lose by signing the
offered document in exchange for the payment
in issue (especially if, as certainly is probable,
the dollar sums in question will not be paid if
s/he does not sign the waiver/release)?
|
| |
| |
For Illinois,
If a salaried worker is never given an employee handbook or is not
informed
of companies policies and procedures, then is laid off and asked to sign a
waiver (release states "foregoing payment is a benefit to which former
employee would not be entitled under the company's established policies,
plans, and procedures and that these benefits constitute extra benefits in
exchange for former employee signing this agreement") when offered
severance, is that merit for pursuing in a court of law?
Since former employee never received a handbook, former employee was never
formally informed of proper procedures and plans.
The clause you quoted is a very common clause. It is not really neccessary,
but I always add it. The purpose is to establish that the waiver the
employees is signing is in exchange for consideration. If the serverance
pay is owed by company policy, then the signature on the waiver is in
exchange for nothing, and the validity of the contract may be challenged.
But severance pay is seldom required by company policy. So the waiver of of
rights in exchange for severance pay is a valid contract, with
consideration, even without the quoted clause.
Soooo, all you need to decide is whether there is a company policy requiring
severance pay. I don't know how to find out in your case. If there is such
a policy, the company might not tell you. If there is not, how can the
company convince you there is not? You can ask others who have been
terminated whether they got severance pay, but that's not conclusive. You
can ask other current employee whether they have a personnel handbook, and
look through it. If you can't find anyone who has a copy, maybe that's a
good indication that there is no such policy. The most likely result is
that there is no severance pay, and the clause is in the contract because
somebody like me put it there to establish consideration for the waiver of
rights. If the employee knows of no specific posible claims of sex
harrassment, age discrimination, or whatever, then the employee isn't giving
up much by signing the waiver, and might want to treat the severance pay as
a lucky windfall. Negotiating an increase in severance pay, after something
has been offered by the company, is very unlikely if there is no hint of any
possible claim of wrongdoing against the company.
McGyver
|
| |
| |
|
