Possible for employees to get retention bonuses after being forced out of the company? The small startup company (~6 employees) I worked for was recently acquired by a larger, but still mid-sized company (~200 employees). As part of the acquisition deal, they offered us substantial 3-year retention bonuses on top of signing bonuses, etc. The stipulations of the retention bonus were fairly standard: If I quit before the designated date, I get none of the bonus If they fire me with no cause before the end date, I get a prorated portion of the bonus from the time we were acquired. If I am fired with cause, I get nothing As of last September (2016), the company started delaying our paychecks by a few days, then weeks, then up to a month. Some of us are 6 paychecks behind. It has put many of us in financial hardship. We live in Oregon, and have given them a "notice of underpayment" (ORS 652.120), which they did not comply with. At this point, many of us are preparing to quit and move on. I plan on filing a complaint with OBLI soon because of their non-compliance. Do I have a legal leg to stand on to fight for the prorated retention bonus as if I was "fired with no cause", given how I am effectively being forced to quit?
If you could successfully prove constructive dismissal (you probably could) then you have been terminated and would be entitled to the pro-rata bonus. Of course, if the company is not in a financial position to pay your wages, it probably can't pay the bonus either.
In the U.S. severance payments are not provided for statutorily, and are rarely made when an employee quits or is fired for cause. However, even when not provided for within contracts it is common to see voluntary severances paid during lay-offs. Furthermore, in the U.S. it is more likely that they would be "laid off" in order to qualify for unemployment insurance. In Pennsylvania one can make claims on the state-run unemployment insurance system only if one is able to work and does not refuse suitable work when offered. If one quits one is not eligible for these payments. Ultimately unemployment claims are born by the employer (since their legally-mandated unemployment insurance premiums are adjusted based on realized claims). So managers with the authority to layoff employees can impose real costs on their companies, both in terms of direct severance payments (which may be optional), and in terms of the inflated unemployment premiums that will hit the company down the road. However, I have never heard of a company attempting to recoup such costs from managers, since such decisions are specifically delegated to managers with hiring/firing authority. It seems much more likely that a manager deemed to have abused the company's purse would be demoted or fired rather than being sued, unless there were some gross fraud involved (e.g., kickbacks).
Washington State is an "At Will" employment state meaning that, with exception to some protected classes and bargaining, the employer may terminate the employee for any reason the employer can cite, or no reason at all. If the firm used it as a benefit of the job but it wasn't agreed upon on the contract, its not a deception as if you can hold the job to the down season, you have less work to do. If a promise was made for employment into the down season during the negotiating of the job, and this was documented, it could be. It could be that he did all the work required of him, but another higher went above and beyond and he got the ax because he was the newest and the lesser performer. Either way, the employer is well within their right to fire an employee for any reason they choose absent discrimination based on protected class status.
It is mandatory for the employer to provide sufficient restrooms (“cabinets d'aisance”), as per article R4228-10. Other provisions regulate evacuation, ventilation, heating, disabled access, etc. There is no provision regarding when employees are permitted to use the restrooms. There can't be a single rule that works for every profession: some jobs don't let you leave your post whenever you like (e.g. machine operator, driver, guard, teacher, etc.). The most common dispute regarding restroom use is whether employees should be paid during that time. Some employers want to count restroom use as unpaid pause time. Strictly speaking, that's legal: an employee who is in a restroom is not at the employer's disposal, therefore this doesn't count as work time. However enforcing this is often logistically difficult and wildly unpopular, so in practice it's only done in places where employees must clock out to reach a restroom. I could only find one case with actual jurisprudence. In 1995, an industrial butchering company (Bigard) decided to limit restroom breaks to three fixed times a day. This was, as you might expect, unpopular; the employees went on strike, and eventually the labor court struck down this measure. That's a precedent, but it doesn't seem to have made its way to the appellate court. Your case is also slightly different in that the restrooms would only be inaccessible for an hour, which is shorter than in the Bigard case. So legally speaking, it isn't clear who will win. You'll have a better chance of success by banking on the unpopularity of the measure. Talk with your colleagues and your representatives and shop stewards. Point out that employees who are trying to hold it in are unlikely to be at the top of their productivity.
Unfortunately your employer is right. The rule says that in order for FMLA to apply to you, you must work at a location with 50 or more employees within 75 miles. Your client is not your employer, even if your employer considers it a place of business. This is outlined in 29 USC 2611 (2)(B)(ii): (1) Commerce The terms “commerce” and “industry or activity affecting commerce” mean any activity, business, or industry in commerce or in which a labor dispute would hinder or obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce, and include “commerce” and any “industry affecting commerce”, as defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 142 of this title. (2) Eligible employee &nbsp;&nbsp;(A) In general The term “eligible employee” means an employee who has been employed— &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(i) for at least 12 months by the employer with respect to whom leave is requested under section 2612 of this title; and &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(ii) for at least 1,250 hours of service with such employer during the previous 12-month period. (B) Exclusions The term “eligible employee” does not include— &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(i) any Federal officer or employee covered under subchapter V of chapter 63 of title 5; or &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(ii) any employee of an employer who is employed at a worksite at which such employer employs less than 50 employees if the total number of employees employed by that employer within 75 miles of that worksite is less than 50. So if you had 50 workers within 75 miles of you (regardless of state borders), then you would be eligible, unfortunately since you do not have that, you are not eligible for FMLA. The number of workers at the office that are not employed by your employer do not count. You are right that the reason for the 50 employee rule is to lessen an undue burden on an employer without adequate resources to cover your absence, but you don't have a case since you are not defined as an "eligible employee" by law.
are contract terms enforceable that say the employee has to pay the employer if they leave without giving notice? Yes, as long as the penalization is not of punitive nature. The doctrine of at-will employment is only the default condition, but a contract may supersede it. As for the extra question, reciprocity of sanctions (as in leaving without notice) is not a requirement for enforceability of a contract. In general, the lack of reciprocity only signals that there is a difference in the parties' bargaining power, but usually that does not affect enforceability.
united-states Even in the 49 U.S. states that are &quot;employment at will&quot; states in the U.S., there are reasons for which termination of employment is prohibited under both state and federal law, and termination without cause entitles an employee to unemployment benefit if certain other conditions are met. Most unionized employees, most public sector employees, most private sector employees in Montana, and a small number of employees (mostly senior management) with written employment contracts that so provide can only be fired for cause. There is a split of authority in the U.S. on the status of not making full disclosure is something that the employer required you to disclose and that you represented that you did disclose in the hiring process, such as your social media accounts. This is commonly called &quot;resume fraud&quot; even though it actually applies more broadly than resumes. Also, sometimes the question might be resolved differently under parallel state and federal laws. In general, in the U.S., asking about social media accounts is something that an employer may permissibly ask unless it is use to facilitate discrimination on a prohibited ground. One rule, which applies in some jurisdictions, is that &quot;resume fraud&quot; (i.e. a material misstatement in a resume or employment application) discovered by an employer after an otherwise wrongful termination can serve as a lawful basis for terminating employment that excuses the wrongful basis for termination of employment (at least assuming that the information withheld or misrepresented was on a matter that the employer could lawfully consider). Even if the information not disclosed was not itself a basis upon which the employer would not have hired someone, the dishonestly in the hiring process would be a basis for termination of employment. For example: The Seventh Circuit, which covers Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, has consistently held that it’s permissible for employers to reject job applicants and fire employees who are suspected of engaging in resumé fraud. The rationale for the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning is very straightforward: lying to employers is a legitimate and non-discriminatory basis for turning down an applicant or firing an employee. The cases of Carter v. Tennant Co., Aubuchon v. Knauf Fiberglass and Gilty v. Village of Oak Park all stand for this proposition. . . . . If the employer, as part of its investigation of the allegations in the lawsuit, discovers that the employee engaged in resumé fraud, can the employer use that belated discovery to its advantage? According to the United States Supreme Court, the answer is yes. More specifically, in McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., the Supreme Court essentially held that an employer’s belated discovery of an independent, alternative basis for firing an employee (e.g., resumé fraud) can be used by the employer to reduce the plaintiff’s potential recovery. (Think of this as the employer’s “if we knew then what we know now, we wouldn’t have hired you in the first place” defense.) In other jurisdictions, &quot;resume fraud&quot; is not itself a basis for discharge, although it might be used as evidence to support an initially claimed valid reason for terminating employment in the face of an employee allegation that this was a mere pretext for wrongful termination. I don't know which states or how many U.S. states fall in each category. The former rule is the rule in almost all cases under federal private sector employment law. A variety of cases that address the question in the context of public employment sector employment can be found here. In addition to these general rules of law, there are also often reasonable questions of fact about whether a prospective employee substantially complied with an employer's social media disclosure question on a fact by fact basis that turns on the exact wording of the question and the reasonable interpretations that language could be given by the employee. For example, if a question has a social media disclosure requirement and one doesn't disclose a blog, one might reasonably argue that a blog is not a social media account, depending on the language used in the question.
TL;DR: It is a $100.000 lawsuit. Talk to a lawyer. If getting out of lawsuits was as easy as acting through a company and selling it afterwards, nobody would ever get paid damages. In addition to that, any answer will depend heavily on a lot of data that you do not disclose (location, kind of company, what is the basis for the lawsuit, etc.). Talk to a lawyer. But, a couple of points to help you understand the situation: the only reason she was 51% shareholder was because my father wanted a certain tax exemption for minority women owning businesses. It does not matter the reason, she was the shareholder. And in fact, I would not publicly use that reason as an excuse before checking with a lawyer, because perhaps it could be considered fraud1. she gave up her rights to the business. Exact wording of the agreement will be important for your lawyer. Did she return ownership of the stock? Or did she just agreed not to manage the business? In C corporations, stockholders are only liable for the money invested (i.e., the value of their stock may drop to zero, but no one can sue them for more). In other kind of companies (unlimited companies), owners can be forced to pay (fully or partially) for the debts of the company. does it matter if she sells her shares at this point or will she still be sued? Who exactly is going to buy the stock? It does not sound like the company is publicly traded, but just a small operation. Unless her 51% is worth more than she is being sued for -or the buyer thinks that the lawsuit will fail-, people won't be interested. Of course, it might be tempting to "forget" telling about the lawsuit to prospective buyers, but that probably will end with the buyer suing your mother when they discover that she has not fully disclosed the status of the company. Talk to a lawyer. 1But explain all of the details to your lawyer, s/he may make use of them and convince your father to take full responsability. And your lawyer will not inform the authorities. Talk to a lawyer.