Can I terminate an employee for qualifying for a job through a &quot;degree mill?&quot; We have recently put together an HR unit, which reviewed all our employees and found that one has an unsatisfactory qualification (BA in Public Relations from an unaccredited college). HR suggested terminating her contract with a notice. HR tells us that her degree from an unaccredited university should still be considered an academic qualification because the document is still legal. I am not satisfied with the HR reasoning: We cannot fire her for misconduct because she has not made any false claim. She claimed to have this qualification (the document) and she does. It was our responsibility to check the validity/quality of the qualification. We cannot extend misconduct claims to paid salary because there is no evidence that she failed to have the skills claimed. I feel deceived and fooled, and cannot simply let it go.
You don't have enough information. What you have is a feeling. And feelings are a lousy reason to engage in a legal action. Now, you have a very strong feeling, and that makes it seem to you like the strength of the feeling alters the above advice. Yes, it does. Very strong feelings are an exceptionally terrible reason to engage in a legal action! I never lose. My superpower is to set aside feelings, gather all the facts, including the ones I don't like, and so doing, know what the judge will say. What you need is more info. For instance, out of your prejudice, you have decided for yourself that "unaccredited" is the same thing as "degree mill". It isn't. There's a huge gulf between: an eccentric university whose brilliant management is too busy actually teaching to play the political games necessary to get an accreditation certificate, and that process may be corrupt in that state. This could be especially so if the university largely serves minorities, and the barriers to accreditation are borne out of bigotry. If so, you could blunder your company right into the middle of some other state's discrimination problem. a fake college whose solitary purpose is sneak immigrants in to take employment, by misusing student visas. a college who uses new media to teach, and their methods are too cutting-edge for the stodgy old accreditation institutions to accept. a college who represented themselves as genuine to the students, and indeed made a fair effort to book-teach them, but the person whose job was to secure accreditation didn't know what they were doing, and found an accreditation agency which wasn't genuine. Exactly what you presume: a student swaps a huge pile of money for a degree, presumably that pile of money is in the form of a private student loan at stupid interest rates. It's likely the person actually did all the real work of college, the accreditation issue is news to them, and if anyone was hoodwinked, it was them. All this misses the point: accreditation is not the important issue. What matters is whether the student applied themselves, organized themselves well, did their best, and willfully extracted a good education. A person can "do the minimum" all the way through Harvard, and be not half the employee as a go-getter at Boston Community College who exceeded the course material and snuck over to Harvard's library for more. Damn the credentials, you want the successful student. Oh wait, this is the Law SE. Why do you want the successful student? Because you have a fiduciary duty to do what is in the best interest of the company and place good employees. To follow your own Don Quixote crusade against people whose colleges had faulty accreditation, is a conflict of interest. You aren't even interested in ascertaining whether this person is a good employee. And that, really, is the bottom line. You (or rather, anyone but you) should be looking at that person's PRs and 360's, and looking at their overall performance for the company. The company's criteria for keeping or replacing should be the probability of finding someone significantly better at about the same pay rate. If this person is an earnest performer, you may have trouble doing that. It's that simple. Employees must do what is in the company's best interest. There's an old joke. Kevin asks the sales manager, "Why do you keep Morty? I've seen his written memos and reports, the guy is a terrible speller." "Yeah, but he outsells all the other salesmen 3:1," said the manager. And I pay him to sell, not to spell."
You can be fired in Canada for criticizing the employer, or even complaining about the weather. There is a distinction between Termination Without Cause and Termination With Cause. In the latter case, which requires a serious reason related to the employee's conduct, you can be fired without advance notice and with no severance pay. If the employees actions are fundamentally inconsistent with their obligation to the employer or are substantially prejudicial to the business in a way that damages employer's business or reputation, they may be terminated with cause. Examples of cause would include insubordination, theft, or abusing customers. If you want to fire a person without cause (and assuming that this is an indefinite employment contract as opposed to a fixed-term contract), you have to give "reasonable notice". There is a statutory minimum, but the courts usually apply a higher common law standard which means that you need to hire a labor lawyer to know what that period is, though 24 months is apparently a relatively safe figure (not always safe). The factors entering into that decision are described here (kind of job, length of service, age, availability of similar jobs; plus, how the termination was handled). You may also owe severance or termination pay, related to length of service and wages. Here is a calculator for Ontario. This article covers some instances in Québec where social media criticism did result in successful suspension, indicating that the employee's duty of loyalty is not entirely null when it comes to social media. In the BC case of Kim v. ITU, the court found that the dismissal over social media posts critical of the company was not for cause. However, part of the company's failure in this case was that they failed to respond immediately to what they saw as inappropriate behavior (boorish Twitter behavior). Assuming that the statements made are accurate and expressed respectfully, the prospects for Termination With Cause are significantly diminished. The prospects for some disciplinary action (suspension for a period of time) remains high -- multiple terminations were modified to long suspensions.
Yes! Some states have laws against it. RCW 9A.60.070, for example, makes it a gross misdemeanor in Washington. (2) A person is guilty of knowingly using a false academic credential if the person ... falsely claims to have a credential issued by an institution of higher education that is accredited by an accrediting association recognized as such by rule of the student achievement council: (a) In a written or oral advertisement or other promotion of a business; or (b) With the intent to: (i) Obtain employment; ... (5) Knowingly using a false academic credential is a gross misdemeanor. If a state does not have a law specific to the issue, it depends on whether the statement is made under penalty of perjury under state law. It is not uncommon to have an employment application that asks for educational information and which you sign under penalty of perjury. In addition, if the employer is a federal agency, for example, or if there is otherwise an argument that the resume is within jurisdiction of a branch of the Federal Government, the crime of making false statements could theoretically be used against a person. In reality, in a state without a law specific to this issue, it is much more likely to be a really bad idea that will tank a person's career than it is to result in a criminal charge. Except perhaps if they do it during an FBI investigation or as part of a security clearance process.
Termination is a matter of fact That is, it has either happened, or it hasn’t. Whether it has or hasn’t depends on a multitude of factors including the terms of the contract, the actions of the parties, and communication between them. These factors are so case specific that it is impossible to generalise. Further, within a given case, reasonable parties may differ on if a contract has been terminated, which party initiated the termination, and if that termination was lawful. Usually, these cases involve mutual allegations of repudiation by the other party and rightful termination in response by our side. These issues are likely to be the major ones that the court or tribunal will have to determine. A claim for damages would need to be pursued as part of the overall case but the deadline for raising them is a procedural matter for the court or tribunal. Failing to raise them as an issue in pre-litigation correspondence would not be a bar to raising them in a claim or counter-claim. However, failing to raise them at the earliest opportunity denies the offending party the opportunity to mitigate the damage and, if they can show that there were actions they could have reasonably taken to mitigate but couldn’t because they weren’t informed, then that may reduce or eliminate the damages payable.
There are not enough facts to draw a conclusion First, it’s not clear that the document you signed amounts to a contract. For example, what consideration did the school give you in return for the permission you gave them? Providing you with an education doesn’t count - they were legally obliged to do that already. If it is a contract then whether and how it can be revoked would depend on the terms of that contract witch I’m guessing you don’t have a copy of. Notwithstanding, as a minor, you have the right to void the contract until a reasonable time after you turn 18. Even if it is now many years since that happened, it might be reasonable since you only just discovered the website. If it isn’t a contract, then it would be revocable at any time. Practicalities Make a fuss and they may take the photos down even if they are not obliged to. They presumably have plenty of photos of kids who aren’t you and aren’t complaining and if you make it so it’s easier to change the website than to deal with you, thy’ll change the website. I suspect their inertia is because they once paid a web developer to create the site, it has never since been updated, they don’t know how to do it, and they don’t want to have to pay someone to find out. Otherwise, why would they have photos of ex-students rather than current students? If so, an offer by you to cover the costs, might solve your problem.
if they do admit to to such fraudulent behavior, either in writing or over the phone, what legal action can I take against them? First of all, the intermediary with whom you are dealing will not admit fraud in writing or over the phone. Most likely the intermediary knows where, when, and how to give a candidate or employee directions that are sought to advance the intermediary's fraudulent purposes. The intermediary's practices sound in violation of Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA), OCGA 10-1-390 et seq. The Attorney General is in charge of receiving and processing/channeling all complaints pursuant to the FBPA. See 10-1-395(c). Apropos of your mention of scamming and "foreign nationals", you might want to report the intermediary with the USCIS if you reasonably suspect the intermediary's fraudulent practices extend to obtaining visas for its employees. 18 USC § 1546 sanctions the act of "procur[ing] by means of any false claim or statement" any document of authorized stay or employment in the US. You will have standing to sue the intermediary only if it does something unlawful to you. Even if you end up suing the intermediary, there is a chance that your case would be presided by some corrupt judge/narcofelon whose "philosophy" in court consists of favoring "employers and [...] anybody who's powerful". In line with one of the comments, you might also want to consider denouncing the intermediary publicly. When doing so, you need to ensure that you prove or are able to prove the statements of fact you make about the intermediary. In this publication, I made statements of fact that I can readily prove by showing evidence, such as excerpt(s) of a contract with the crooked intermediary as well as excerpts of his deposition. The only reason why I refrained from disclosing other fraudulent practices this intermediary incurred is that neither these were not recorded nor did he reflect them in writing (your evidence need not be in the form of sworn/notarized documents or court filings; records such as emails would be fine). It is comforting that you are not planning on dealing further with that kind of employer. On paper the intermediary might assure you that you retain full control of your resume, yet that will not prevent him from pressing you in ways you could hardly prove later on.
This refers to state law (not federal law) RCW 9A.60.070, titled "False academic credentials". It is against the law to issue a false academic credential, and also to use a false academic credential. Getting to the penalty part, issuing a false academic credential is a class C felony, but knowingly using a false academic credential is only a gross misdemeanor. A false academic credential is a document that provides evidence or demonstrates completion of an academic or professional course of instruction beyond the secondary level that results in the attainment of an academic certificate, degree, or rank, and that is not issued by a person or entity that: (i) Is an entity accredited by an agency recognized as such by rule of the student achievement council or has the international equivalents of such accreditation; or (ii) is an entity authorized as a degree-granting institution by the student achievement council; or (iii) is an entity exempt from the requirements of authorization as a degree-granting institution by the student achievement council; or (iv) is an entity that has been granted a waiver by the student achievement council from the requirements of authorization by the council. Such documents include, but are not limited to, academic certificates, degrees, coursework, degree credits, transcripts, or certification of completion of a degree. It then depends on the way in which you modify the transcript. One thing you could do is add text indicating that you received a BA degree, when in fact you did not receive any degree: this would be a false academic credential. If you want to go all the way for a felony charge, you have to issue and not just use a false academic credential. To issue a false credential, you have to do one of the following things: (a) Grants or awards a false academic credential or offers to grant or award a false academic credential in violation of this section; (b) Represents that a credit earned or granted by the person in violation of this section can be applied toward a credential offered by another person; (c) Grants or offers to grant a credit for which a representation as described in (b) of this subsection is made; or (d) Solicits another person to seek a credential or to earn a credit the person knows is offered in violation of this section. whereas the misdemeanor of using a false credential is (paraphrasing para 2) falsely using or claiming to have a credential issued by an accredited institution for certain purposes. Those purposes include advertisement of a business, or with the intent to get a job, license, promotion, admission to educational program, or getting a government position. However, there is also a law against forgery, which is if a person with intent to injure or defraud: (a) He or she falsely makes, completes, or alters a written instrument or; (b) He or she possesses, utters, offers, disposes of, or puts off as true a written instrument which he or she knows to be forged. A forged instrument is defined as "a written instrument which has been falsely made, completed, or altered", and a "written instrument" is (a) Any paper, document, or other instrument containing written or printed matter or its equivalent; or (b) any access device, token, stamp, seal, badge, trademark, or other evidence or symbol of value, right, privilege, or identification. and forgery is a class C felony. You can be charged with both crimes.
Education level is not an FHA protected category. However, whenever you give one broad group preferential treatment over another, you'll raise eyebrows. Someone might argue, for example, that while your incentive does not explicitly mention a protected category like race or sex, it might disproportionately impact one group in a protected category over another. In fact, the Supreme Court in 2015 addressed this question in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project. They found (albeit by a 5-4 vote) that disparate impact could, under certain circumstances, be the basis for a discrimination claim under FHA. The Wikipedia article on this subject is informative. As for your case, it really depends on what you are trying to accomplish with the policy, and what you reasonably predict it will do. For example, given that in most areas, white people more often have graduate degrees than black people, then if this policy did in fact end up advantaging white tenant over black tenants, someone might claim that you are in effect discriminating on the basis of race. I would not want to be on the defending end of that claim. In general, if you want to be safe from FHA's wrath, you need to evaluate each applicant on their individual merits as a tenant, not their membership in some group. Whenever you treat one person differently from another person, you should have a reason that clearly derives from your business interests as a landlord, and you should write it down. Legal questions aside, it seems like a really bad idea to offer incentives like this. I can't imagine it achieving any legitimate business goal, and I can easily imagine it making tenants or applicants feel cheated and devalued. And when people feel cheated and devalued, even if they haven't legally been wronged, they often seek legal redress. Or slash your tires. The fact that grad degrees would not be required under your policy isn't relevant. In the eyes of the FHA, any disparate treatment on the basis of a protected category is discrimination. The only real question here is whether this is disparate treatment on the basis of a protected category.