Can You Be Sued for Quitting? 1057
An anonymous reader asks: "I work at a large hosting company in Texas, and recently decided to go work for a smaller competitor. I had a great relationship with my employer and wanted to leave on good terms, and I hadn't signed any non-compete or employment agreements . I felt my old company had just gotten too large and I didn't like working there anymore, so I gave them two weeks notice in writing. They were really upset when I insisted on leaving and one week into my last two weeks the V.P. of Sales told me the company was suing me for leaving, and they were also suing my new employer for hiring me. I was shocked, and they then escorted me out of the building. Has anybody ever heard of this happening? Do they have any legal basis for suing me?" It shouldn't have to be said that seeking professional legal representation, in such a situation, is the first thing one should do.
IANAL Either, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Good luck on this.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
Smear? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:IANAL Either, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
In most cases, the ONLY way to ensure the effectiveness of a non-compete is to continue paying the person for the full term of the non-compete. I.e., if you don't want me to work for a competitor for the next 12 months, you have to pay me for the next 12 months instead.
Now - you CAN legally bind the person from not sharing confidential information or inside understanding of your business... but proving that is much tougher.
This is not a legal opinion (IANAL), but it IS a summary of legal advice was given to my wife (HR Manager) regarding employees of her company leaving.
MadCow.
Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Been there, done that (Score:5, Insightful)
Having said the above, not all lawyers are created equal. Get one who knows what he's doing about employment law. Our local bar association has a lawyer referral service and will give you the names of lawyers with the correct specialization. Call your local bar association and see if they have a similar service.
Re:too short? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft did sue Google, but they settled out of court, and Lee works for Google today.
Even if the guy being sued did sign a non-compete without realizing, they still can only sue to block him from working for a competitor. They can't sue him just for quitting. And depending on what Texas courts think of non-competes, they might still be on thin ice. Here in California, courts have generally held non-competes to unenforceable. I have a non-compete, like most other tech workers, and the major reason courts have generally held them unenforceable is that (especially in a narrow specialty like mine), a two-year non-compete clause would be tantamount to forcing me to leave my chosen career completely and work for a lot less money in some other industry.
Add to that the fact that the standard employment agreement states that you have an at-will relationship with your employer. They can terminate your employment at any time, for any reason, or for none. Likewise, you can quit at any time, for any reason, or for none. If an employee is going to be at-will (yes, you can still sue for wrongful termination in some circumstances, I know), companies can't expect to have it both ways. If they can do whatever they want with respect to their employees' employment, employees likewise should be able to do so.
I agree with that idea, both because I'm an employee, and because I have fairly libertarian principles regarding the free market for goods and services. My job skills, like my house, stocks, car, or any other assets, should be worth whatever the market will bear, to offer to any bidder, without restriction. If a company can keeps its employees happy (and that takes a lot more than salary; salary may not even be the top thing; I'd rather make a medium salary at a great place to work than a top-of-market salary at a bad place to work), they'll stay there and work. If it can't, they'll go elsewhere. Maybe to a competitor. That's fair. Employees should have the same relationship with a company that customers do: make them unhappy and you'll lose them.
Re:Smear? (Score:3, Insightful)
So maybe the "Large Hosting Company" should have been left anonymous.
Re:I have heard of attempts to sue... (Score:3, Insightful)
The company management is clearly poor. The lawsuit is a good indication of this.
Bad management is probably why the work environment is crap. Which is why people are choosing to leave.
Chicken and egg.
Re:too short? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cheap skates (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have heard of attempts to sue... (Score:4, Insightful)
But that's usuaully used as a scare tactic. At least with what we've seen in public news. Its a scare tactic to keep people from doing something like making a parody of strawberry shortcake (Eh hem).
Suing someone for their livelyhood when you have no legal ground to do so is just plain stupid. Anyone who needed to work and was being tried to prevent that would surely challenge the plaintiff. Who wouldn't challenge that? What was The Planet thinking? Actually, don't answer that.
I hope this makes people think twice before hosting with The Planet or one of their resellers or one of their resellers or one of their resellers or one of their resellers........
sig removed
Re:I have heard of attempts to sue... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this actually happened the way OP described I would guess the VP of Sales (which in my experience isn't all that high of a position in management, and certainly not one to initiate a lawsuit on behalf of the company, but I could be wrong) was just being an ass. Threats of lawsuit are pretty common in this country, and most remain just that-- idle threats. Perhaps the VP of Sales heard the CEO say "I ought to sue him for leaving" in the heat of the moment and took it literally; that kind of thing happens all the time.
Except...
The "anonymous reader" was thoughtful enough to name his former employer in the link, in effect smearing the company's name on a website read by hundreds of thousands of people (many in their industry) daily. Assuming this wasn't made up to begin with, the identity of the "anonymous reader" should be easy for the company to discover. If they weren't going to sue before, this may make them angry enough to do so now-- and they might have a better case.
do not discuss law on slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an international forum, being used to discuss a state-specific legal issue. People from all over the world, and from all different states will discuss what the "law" is without realizing that they may not be discussing the same thing. Thankfully, this post had the decency to mention the jurisdiction, but what percentage of the people reading *and posting responses* are from Texas?!?
Next, this post would be 100x more interesting if we learned the outcome of the situation. So what if somebody's ex-employer was a dick and said some shit about suing? Like that won't happen again. If this individual was telling us about an actual outcome based on real law, then this might actually be worth reading about.
Finally, the "editor" should be fired *and* sued for posting this kind of clueless "get a frickin' lawyer when and if it happens" crap.
Re:Cheap skates (Score:3, Insightful)
My state and employer are both that way, so I'm quite aware of how that works...
Now the problem if he is in such a situation... Is that he won't be able to counter sue for wrongful termination (it doesn't exist in states like that).
Re:Shit List (Score:5, Insightful)
We are a tight group and we get things done.
However, if you make a wrong step, it can all turn sour in a minute.
Don't ever mistake the place you work for anything other than a symbiotic relationship. Don't ever mistake the people in the next cubicle for your friends. If you start something that devalues their stock or makes them work harder to pick up your slack, then you'll be out in the cold.
It pays to keep ammunition for those times. It might just literally save your life.
And, if it's never needed, then it's no blood no foul.
Didn't we have a spat about this once??? (Score:2, Insightful)
The result, I believe, was a rather empathic NO!
Re:Unions (Score:5, Insightful)
There's got to me more (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the company escorted him out of the building they are not trying to leverage him to stay, so they must be trying to recover some damages. I'm not saying the company is right, I'm just saying that a large company with a legal department wouldn't waste their money on a lawsuit unless they had at least a CHANCE to get some money.
For example.......
Did he recently get a promotion that included relocation, which carried with it a minumum commitment? Something else? What's the rest of the story OP?
Re:Been there, done that (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Call Bar association
2. Get reference for lawyer who know stuff about your case
3. Talk to lawyer.
4. Counter sue
5. Profit!
Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I am deeply disappointed that this blatant smear was even posted in the first place.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
I had that discussion with one of my managers about people giving notice, and I asked him how much notice I would get from him if I were to be fired or laid off. He went into a long explanation of how telling an employee he's getting canned causes all sorts of security problems and low productivity etc etc, to which I pointed out I would give him as much notice as I thought he would give me.
I don't think he liked that, but he understood where I was coming from. Companies expect generosity and loyalty from their employees, but have absolutely no intention of being generous or loyal to their employees. Generous and loyal employees increase company proffit. Generous and loyal companies lower company proffit. That can only lead to this sort of behavior.
I hope this fellow gets a nice settlement from a countersuit, he deserves it.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
I always try to leave a place on a somewhat positive note, not bitching and moaning the whole way out. I don't tend to join places where they're completely incompetent or assholes, so I show the colleagues I leave behind the respect that I think they deserve.
What goes around comes around, too. I've never had someone just walk out on me and leave their projects hanging. People who work for me and feel they need to go work elsewhere almost universally have done so without just ditching me. They usually give me a couple weeks to a month.
Treat people with respect and you tend to get respect. Treat people like shit and they tend to treat you like shit.
Re:Shit List (Score:5, Insightful)
There are things called friendship and trust.
If you are secretly storing up a list of 'ammunition' against people, then you are betraying that friendship and trust. (The only time I would consider it OK is if there is no trust to begin with.) It is wrong to think that such a secret list will have no deleterious effect unless you actually decide to deploy it.
This is the same myth that 'private life' and 'public life' are separable entities. They are not. What you do secretly affects the way you think, which affects they way you act, which affects how you treat others. It just isn't possible to do something in private without it subtly (or not so subtly) affecting the public aspects of your life.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
Better still, where's the "ironic" mod points? Aside from that, this is terrible advice. Why burn your bridges? Put in your two weeks notice, then during that time do your best for your current employer. That way if your current job does not work out, or you find yourself desiring to return, it would make it much easier for you, as your employer will remember what you did for them in your final days.
Re:Shit List (Score:2, Insightful)
There are indeed. Just don't expect to find them in relationships with your employers.
Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a professional and finishing up your projects is a good way to encourage goodwill should you choose to come back, and also to get good references.
I actually keep a journal... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's been helpful, mostly because it has enabled me to thread together events in time that I might not have otherwise seen if I wasn't keeping track. My effectiveness has been improving...but it is also becoming more and more apparant that this is one of the most disfuntional organization I've ever worked for.
On the plus side, I've picked up some useful skills on how to function in a dis-organized environment and learned some new FEA software along the way. All very useful things to bring to my next gig.
Keeping an objective journal (not a "shit-list") is a good idea.
At Will Employment (Score:1, Insightful)
If you see that phrase, they have no case and this is purely for the purpose of intimidation.
Why, I can't guess. Do they really think you're going to want to come back at this point? What can they hope to accomplish?
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
For security purposes, I understand why a company would not want to give you notice of a lay off and instead say thanks for your service. However, a reputable company would give you at least two weeks severance pay... which is kind of like a two weeks notice, but better: You don't have to work for the company, they are paying you not to work, and you have two weeks (or more) pay to hunt down a new job.
Re:There's got to me more (Score:2, Insightful)
This sounds like nothing more than someone with authority getting pissy when he discovered the guy was leaving for a competitor, and a bitchy sales guy talking some smack that could get his own ass fired. There is plenty of room in this world for tactless and reckless idiots to rise to positions of responsibility.
Re:Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You may still have a non-compete in place (Score:3, Insightful)
As movie producer Sam Goldwyn (and many others) said: "An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on."
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
And frankly, even from a moral point of view do you want someone walking around talking about how much better a job they are moving too?
A policy that requires people to stay 3 months is idiotic and self-defeating. Granted their may be extenuating circumstances (hard to fill position, very arcane knowledge, etc) but a blanket rule like that isn't a great idea.
Re:I have heard of attempts to sue... (Score:3, Insightful)
It happens often enough. An old obscure band I referended before called Dumptruck [furious.com] was with Big Time records, an indy label. After their contract expired they decided to move up in the world to another label, Big Time sued them for breach of (non existant) contract for the sum of 5 million. Not like they bothered to show up in court or anything, but also it's not like anyone would pick them up given the pending 5 million dollar law suit, something that took years to resolve.
Managers are alot like children, they do things out of spite.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
So, just because you don't have any work ethics, no one else should have any ?
What about temps ? Do you want them gone asap after hiring because they may be looking for their next job already ?
Texas is an "employment at will" state (Score:4, Insightful)
However, that doesn't mean they can't sue you... this will force you to spend money on legal representation and make your life a little miserable even if the suit is ruled to be baseless. If it is and you've got a halfway decent lawyer, you might be able to get it dismissed with prejudice and your legal fees covered.
So why are they suing? Clearly they are burning any bridges with you, and aren't expecting to try to get you back. Unless you are independently wealthy, it's unlikely even if they succeeded that they would be able to collect enough in damages to make this worthwhile. This leaves two explanations I can think of: petty revenge, or to intimidate the rest of the employees. I'm betting on a combination of both, with a heavy dose of intimidation.
-R
Just out of curiosity... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just out of curiosity, and assuming of course that everything he wrote is true, what exactly would that better case be? "Your honor, he told the truth about events that he personally witnessed, and in a public forum to boot!"? Or maybe "He directed more traffic to our web site and potentially posted our Google page rank, with malice aforethought!"?
--MarkusQ
N ice guys finish first (Score:5, Insightful)
May be if would not be such a cynic if you read some of the articles by Robert Axelrod of Univ of Michigen on "Evolution of Cooperation", "Complexity of Cooperation", and BBC shows like "Nice Guys Finish First" by Richard Dawkins.
Re:I have heard of attempts to sue... (Score:3, Insightful)
In most states, the labor laws clearly state that employment is at-will. He can leave whenever he wants and they can fire him any time they want and, barring employment or non-competition contracts, they have no means of precluding him from working at a competitor, provided that he's not bringing any trade secrets with him.
Re:Shit List (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if I were purely motivated by self-interest, wouldn't I want a source of good references for the future? Why burn bridges?
I Am A Lawyer and I Say ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ianal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
I've quit three times, and given three weeks notice each time. Each time I spent the first week tying up loose ends, and the second week not doing much. (In fact, on monday of the last week at a big office, my boss told me "Don't do anything important".)
Now, each time I've moved to a new job that was in a substantially different field than the one before, so there was little danger of either taking secrets or other employees with me. I feel like it worked out pretty well both for me (I got a chance to say goodbye to everyone I wanted to personally) and the company (they knew I wasn't leaving anything unfinished).
Coincidentally, we've got a guy here who's last day is today (he gave notice weeks and weeks ago, he's rather senior). He's still working, which makes me very nervous, because it shows it's going to be a big scramble when he goes. I feel a week's salary is a small price to pay for the assurance the transition is going to be smooth.
Re:ianal (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not ? The ones who will slack off before leaving would be dumb if they told you about it.
and I certainly don't want them hanging around telling all my customers and employees about their great new job.
In that case, you better hire a good hit man instead. Or how else do you want to keep them from talking to their colleagues outside of work ? Maybe they have their cellphone numbers, maybe they're even friends, maybe they even go out for a drink after work. Heck. Maybe they'll even us the internet in one form or another. Also, see above. The ones who do want really want to badmouth your company would be dumb if they gave any notice. They'll do what they want to do and then quit without notice.
Re:ianal (Score:2, Insightful)
There are always individual cases, but if it's just a random person turning in notice, you don't want the risk that they will do something bad (even accidentally) when you have no more recourse over them.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
Two years later I found myself unemployed with a low bank account and a couple of mouths to feed. The job market was crappier then than it is right now. They took me back in. I have no doubt about what would have happened if I had acted like an asshole.
Re:ianal (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, no.
If you have that as part of a contract, then yes, they can do (almost) anything you signed off on.
If "at will" and you have vacation hours (and sometimes even sick time) as part of your compensation, they damned well better pony up for it when you leave. And no, you don't need to give notice, sign anything at the exit interview, or the like. "At will" means "at will" - Either party can break off the relationship whenever the hell they want, but that doesn't excuse either side from fulfilling obligations that predate the parting of ways (though conveniently, such obligations almost always fall on the employer).
Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Didn't we have a spat about this once??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:ianal (Score:3, Insightful)
I hated the guts of my ex-boss when I left a job a year and a half ago. It was for a big company, I was a Manager there. It was toward the end of a project for which I was managing the infrastructure part, I gave 6 weeks notice so I could make sure the project was done on my side and everybody trained to take over from me.
I left with a great reputation. Reputation and work ethic is one of your best asset if you want to build a name and career for yourself. Business world is a small world, your reputation preceeds you and you often run into the same people even in different jobs.
oh, and I left that job with pride AND a smile! Because my part of the project even though I left was the ONLY part that was finished ON TIME and under budget. My boss' part was late and his ass got fired! My reputation is intact & great, his, well...
Re:ianal (Score:3, Insightful)
You did not quit! (Score:3, Insightful)
They can sue, but it is not likely they would win. The new employer may not like it.
Re:Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't "have to" do anything in most (perhaps all) states. I don't know the breakdown, but the vast majority of states are "at-will" states unless there's a contract involved, meaning either party can terminate employment at any time for any reason.
There is neither a need to give notice nor is there a requirement for employers to pay you for that time if you do. They're only required to pay you for the time you actually work. If your friend got a "3 month paid vacation" by giving 3 months notice, it just means his company's HR department forgot to terminate his employment and the payroll department never caught the mistake. That's pretty unlikely at most companies.
Giving notice is purely a courtesy. It legally can not affect recommendations or references, and there is absolutely nothing any company can do to force you to stay at work in an at-will state. You're not in jail, you have no obligation to your company if you want to quit. Your company in turn has no obligation to you.
Look at it this way. Your company does not have to give you two weeks notice to fire you, nor would they. Why would you need to give two weeks notice to quit? Neither side is obligated when employment is terminated, and it doesn't matter who is doing the terminating.
That is, of course, provided you're not under contract or a non-compete, which are both different situations.
Re:ianal (Score:3, Insightful)
How the heck the previous comment got modded "insightful" is beyond me. "Petty" or "small minded" would be better choices.
One thing to remember... (Score:2, Insightful)
For every 100 "I'm going to sue you" lines, I would be surprised if three resulted in an actual lawsuit. It seems to be the first thing that oh-so-many people say, but when the reality of (a) having to pay a lawyer, (b) having to invest their time, and (c) having to prove an actual case kicks in, they tend to just sort of go back to their regular lives.
steve
Re:I have heard of attempts to sue... (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in California, non-competes are not enforceable-- you can't prevent an employee from making a living. However, two interesting things do crop up: 1. You can't steal employees from your former employer; and 2. If you have stock/options in the company (and signed a stock agreement) you are held to a higher standard.
What's odd about the situation the OP described is that only an idiot would sue before you actually started the new job. Scare tactics like "Our lawyers are looking into this" are common; I even got a letter from a lawyer hired by the previous company about suspending buyback of my stock. We hired two lawyers to send letters back to the company, and everything was restored to normalcy pretty quickly.
After the experience, I now think that it is a good idea to be cautious of lawsuits, and to operate in an ethical way towards any former employers. This is especially true if you are starting up your own business.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
Some large companies make it a policy to release people as soon as they give notice, maybe because large companies are less personal and are at a greater risk of having people leave on bad terms. Others may not. It depends on how you want to run your business. There are good reasons in either direction and a good manager balances those with the needs of the business.
Re:ianal (Score:2, Insightful)
Nah. Then it wouldn't be an esoteric lesson in "free markets" that allow employers to enslave employees.
Re:ianal (Score:3, Insightful)
Good will... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a professional and finishing up your projects is a good way to encourage goodwill should you choose to come back, and also to get good references.
Re:Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:ianal (Score:4, Insightful)
I take it you don't have anyone with specialized knowledge...
I'm planning on leaving my job in about a year (starting school), and I know that the amount of specialized knowledge I have would make me nearly impossible to replace within a short time frame. As a result, I'm going to give a month notice for them, and also start pouring out every bit of relevant knowledge into a comprehensive handbook for my eventual successor. It will probably take most of that month to write, but it will buy them years of productivity.
Re:ianal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Smear campaign? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:3, Insightful)
At my company, giving business references is strictly prohibitied. You can only give "personal references".
Re:I have heard of attempts to sue... (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I think the cloak of silence around companies that do evil things to their employees is awful. They should be named. It should be out in the open, and people should know. Maybe employers would work harder to find managers who were worth the salaries they were paid if their management's screwups became public knowledge. Especially for something like this.
If what this anonymous reader says is true, I can't see how the company could win any kind of lawsuit. Sure, it might make them more likely to try. And if they did I'm sure a judge would be happy to award the defendents significant damages for the company trying to waste their time and the courts time with a frivolous intimidation lawsuit.
Re:ianal (Score:3, Insightful)
When I fire someone, I usually pay out the rest of the week; if they get paid the week after they work, I'll get them their last check as early as possible.
But once someone says "I'm leaving in two weeks", I cannot expect them to put 100% into their work -- and I certainly don't want them hanging around telling all my customers and employees about their great new job.
Well, I don't know what industry you work in, or what kind of workers you're hiring, but that seems like a particularly cynical view to take. I am a professional, and I work with and for professionals. And usually when you're dealing with professionals you don't have to worry as much about those sorts of issues.
For example, I just put in my notice this past Tuesday. I gave my employer about 2.5 weeks notice that I was leaving. It wasn't a situation where I hate the company that I work for, or the people that I work with, I was just looking for a new challenge (I joined this place in when it was a startup, now it's a mature company). Everyone that I work with respects that, and I'll be working out my notice.
During those two and a half weeks I will be wrapping up the projects that I can complete, and transitioning the ones that I can't complete to other team members. I'll be doing a lot of knowledge transfer as well. But I doubt that I'll be taking on any new projects. So technically you're right in saying that I won't be working at 100%, but the work that I will be doing will be key to making sure that my department continues to operate smoothly after I'm gone. And of course I will be available for the occasional call or email after I'm gone if they have a question about something that I had been working on. It's just good business not to burn bridges.
Now if my employer had shown me the door the minute I turned in my notice, they would be fairly screwed. The projects that I was working on would grind to a crawl (if not an outright stop) while someone else tries to figure out where we were when I was escorted out. Any specific or specialized knowledge would be lost. No knowledge transfer would take place. I would probably be somewhat resentful about the way I was treated and therefore be unwilling to help them out with any of the mess.
And what would that get you? Sure, I wouldn't be walking around your office talking to coworkers about my great new job, but if you think that coworkers don't talk to each other from time to time outside of work then you're mistaken. So that word would still get around. I'd also be likely to tell my future coworkers about how you treated me when I turned in my notice. I would be extremely unlikely to want to work for or with you again, and my friends and future coworkers would know why. This could potentially impact your ability to find future employees. Not having the knowledge transfer or a smooth transition also runs up costs associated with employee turnover. If I can offer some measure of training to the people who will be replacing me then I can save you money.
Running a company is a matter of managing liabilities: hey, if you do great work then I want you here. If I can no longer count on you to do great work, why would I keep you around?
I disagree. Running a company includes managing liabilities, but it's about far more than that. You also have to manage people and relationships (and lots of other things that aren't necessarily relevant here). If your people aren't happy, or you have a negative relationship towards your workers then your business will suffer. Not just in reduced productivity, but also in reduced reputation. Both of those will cost you money.
And I also think that it's ridiculous to think that just because someone is leaving the company that you can no longer count on them to do great work. If someone is a professional and you are paying them for work then I see no reason
Re:There's got to me more (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd advise The Planet to sue
Re:Not the primary goal, yes :) (Score:3, Insightful)
This only holds true if you don't live paycheck to paycheck. I have a lot of friends that are forced to work near minimum wage jobs for one reason or another. A lot of them are under the false belief that they are required by law to give two weeks notice. They have all seen someone at work give notice and be escorted out the door. They then had no paycheck for two weeks while they were waiting for the next job to start. If they have a set training date or are waiting for the results of a drug test, then asking to go to work two weeks early is not an option. I have seen it take people years to recover from this if they live in this pay scale. Once they have the bonced check fees and other late fees, they can never catch up. Corporate America's way of saying Thank You! for giving them time to hire and train a replacement. Ask just about anyone that works for a grocery store, low end departments store, or fast food. Unless you work in a professional field. You take all your vacation, wait until you are in a position that you don't need the money from the rest of the day on, then give notice. If you want to be nice, do it right before your scheduled day off. They can and will replace you in 24 hours. If you feel that you owe your company more, then you need to consider why you are leaving.
On 90% of the jobs I have left, I did give two weeks notice, but I was prepared to sit at home for two weeks. Over half of those I was excorted out the minute I gave notice. Number of times that I have been given more that 5 min notice - 0%, and I was never left alone for those 5 min. Someone was always there to watch me gather my tools. I even went and explained to a boss once that my car was having problems, and that I was considering putting a down payment on a new one, is there even a chance of a layoff. He told me not to worry about it, that they had enough work for months. I was handed a pink slip at quitting time the next day. Got to drive my new car back to the lot and negotiate how much money it would cost for them to take it back. Money I could have lived on while looking for another job. It had been prepared and signed by that boss the week before. It is different a little better now that I am skilled labor instead of manual labor, but I have only seen the very top managers get any notice.
No, You can't be sued but your new employer can. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You may still have a non-compete in place (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, you're a lawyer? And, this is your statement?
IANAL, but at least I know that in the lack of written contract, the courts have nothing more to rely on than laws and previous case history; in this case, the AT WILL laws. If the terms weren't given in written form and signed by the employee, there is absolutely no other terms than what has been established by the government.
That's not to say the guy shouldn't seek council, however his stance should be, "My previous employer never submitted any terms or conditions for my employment and therefore my employment contract was AT WILL."
The employer doesn't have anything on the guy. He's free to go, without any previously signed contract stating otherwise. He has to be careful about not sharing proprietary information, but other than that, he's set.
Re:anyone can sue anybody at anytime for anything (Score:3, Insightful)
> The 'liberty' here involves ending the life of another person.
Define 'person', and when a mass of cells becomes a 'person'.
For instance: Is a sperm a person? What about the egg? What about a newly fertilized egg which hasn't yet been attached to a uterous?
How about when it is 32 cells?
I find your statement to be ill-founded. Come up with a better foundation. I'll be absolutely shocked if you can come up with a defintion of 'person' that most people agree with here.
> There is a reason the founding fathers put life ahead of liberty. When the act of excersising a liberty causes the death of another person, the government must protect the life of the person.
> Thus, my point still stands.
Youre being somewhat incoherent. What I believe you want to say is something to the effect of:
Your right to liberty ends when it would infringe on someone else's right to life. Since gov't exists to protect these rights, it must protect people's lives so that they may exercise their liberty.
> Also, saying that your forcing someone to have an unwanted child is bs anyway.
No, actually it isn't. Please make a sensible argument about how the gov't wouldn't be forcing someone to have an unwanted child assuming that people have sex, and don't always want the child.
Saying "Well, they shouldn't have gotten themselves into that situation in the first place" doesn't change the fact that they do, and are then prevented from dealing with the pregnancy before an unwanted child is born.
> There seems to be this direct link between having sex and getting pregnant that people don't seem to get. The best way to keep from having a child is to not have sex.
You're right. But arguing that people should do without is simply unrealistic.
Sex is a perfectly natural thing. It is ingrained and instinctual, and we're built to enjoy it, ostensibly so that we will procreate.
Since, as we're using too much of the planet's resources, that procreation may be a bad thing now (though catholics may disagree), there is a strong impetus (often economic) that people shouldn't have children.
> There is no god given right to sex in the constitution and no where does the constitution say that you have the right to the pursuit of happiness without concequences.
I love this line of reasoning.. You shouldn't be able to have sex (assuming that you cannot have an abortion) unless you're willing and able to deal with the consequences. This is fun! Eventually, when you take this line of reasoning to the extreme, what you're saying is that only rich people can have sex because only they are equipped to deal with the consequences.
Fun!
> And before you bring up rape and incest, in those cases the woman will ussually get the morning after pill.
Incorrect. This can be labeled 'abortion', and some pharmicists DON'T DISPENSE THESE PRESCRIPTIONS.
Some pharmicists won't even SELL THESE DRUGS if they're OTC.
Even more fun, you get assholes who will not fill the prescription, and who will hold onto it so that no other pharmacist may fill it.
> And in cases where the woman hides it till its too late to get a legal abortion (assuming that the state she lives in allows abortions up until a certain point) then they should be able to go to a judge and get due process of law to authorize the abortion.
You're making no sense. You're saying that a woman will go to a judge to get a dispensation to have an illegal abortion?
Re:too short? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can get accurate unemployment figures from the US government.