Can a US employer hire someone as a salaried worker, require them to work long hours, and then fire? I have a friend who began a job at a large firm as an auditor at the end of 2017. The nature of this work is that there are two seasons: a busy season (Q1 and part of Q2 of any given year) and a slow season (the rest of the year). This feature of the work is part of what is advertised to new employees. This friend worked the busy season (60-80 hr weeks) and was recently fired as the slow season (20-40 hours) approached. Is it lawful for an employer to terminate an employee under the (here false) pretense of receiving some benefit (here shorter hours) for extremely difficult work (very long hours) at the beginning? This is of course assuming that the employee was doing fine work and was only fired since their use had already run its course. It feels as though this should not be allowed since, as an employer, I could continually higher people to do difficult work in the promise that something great will return later. It seems like a way to (essentially) hire hourly workers and require them to work overtime while not paying overtime (after reading the laws I believe this friend was exempt from overtime pay). If it helps, the state is Washington.
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.
Given that the purpose of the bonus is to incentivize you to stay, and you are willing to do that, I see no reason why you shouldn't keep the signing bonus if you are fired. While this is not totally without ambiguity, it is at least a fair reading of the statement that a pay back applies only to a voluntary departure, and ambiguities are generally interpreted against the drafter. Also, keeping the signing bonus compensates you for having to start up at a new job only to have it promptly dissipate.
Here's what the gov't has to say: Furloughed workers Where a bank holiday falls inside a worker’s period of furlough and the worker would have usually worked the bank holiday, their furlough will be unaffected by the bank holiday. However, if the worker would usually have had the bank holiday as annual leave, there are 2 options. The bank holiday is taken as annual leave If the employer and the worker agree that the bank holiday can be taken as annual leave while on furlough, the employer must pay the correct holiday pay for the worker. Employers may also require workers to take the bank holiday as annual leave with the correct notice periods. The bank holiday is deferred If the employer and the worker agree that the bank holiday will not be taken as annual leave at that time, the worker must still receive the day of annual leave that they would have received. This holiday can be deferred till a later date, but the worker should still receive their full holiday entitlement. So if you would normally have the Bank Holiday off (and as part of your annual leave entitlement) and you and the employer don't agree to defer it then it's annual leave, not Furlough, as to what that means for pay purposes: Furloughed workers An employer should not automatically pay a worker on holiday the rate of pay that they are receiving while on furlough, unless the employer has agreed to not reduce the worker’s pay while on furlough. If a worker on furlough takes annual leave, an employer must calculate and pay the correct holiday pay in accordance with current legislation - see the standard guidance. Where this calculated rate is above the pay the worker receives while on furlough, the employer must pay the difference. However, as taking holiday does not break the furlough period, the employer can continue to claim the 80% grant from the government to cover most of the cost of holiday pay. But what does this mean with regards to your number of days? Employees can take holiday whilst on furlough. If an employee is flexibly furloughed then any hours taken as holiday during the claim period should be counted as furloughed hours rather than working hours. Well it means that if you're off on the Bank Holiday (as annual leave) even though they have to pay you the full amount it is still counted as a furlough day and you'll still be working three days that week, with the Monday being a furlough day. If you and the employer agreed to defer the Bank Holiday then you could conceivably work the Monday + two other days. But there's no permutation where you only work two days without taking an additional leave day.
Normally the statute of limitations is five or six years (I think it's different between Scotland and the rest of the UK). The reason for the limitation is that if your employer asks for money back, you obviously should be able to defend yourself, for example by proving that you never received that money. After five or six years it is assumed that you wouldn't be able to provide any such evidence, so nobody can ask for the money back anymore. That's not specific to overpaid wages but quite general. In addition there is the question whether the pilots should have known they were overpaid. For example, I'm quite happy with my salary, but if it was less, I would look for and find a different job that pays better. If the company claimed in five years time that I had been overpaid all the time, then I would say that if they had given me the "correct" lower payment, I would have found a better job elsewhere, so asking me to repay the money seems quite unfair. (Why do you need to defend yourself? Maybe your salary was £3,000 per month. Someone in the right position records that they are paying you £4,000 but puts £3,000 into your account and £1,000 into their own. Then that person has an accident and their replacement finds that you were overpaid according to their records.)
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers are generally required to pay a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. But under 29 U.S. Code § 213, many employees are exempted from this requirement. For Elon Musk and similarly situated individuals, the relevant exemption is found at section 213(a)(1): any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity Although FLSA's definition of &quot;bona fide executive&quot; typically still requires at least a salary $684/week, 29 CFR § 541.101 expands that term to also include any employee who (a) has at least a 20 percent ownership interest in the employing business; and (b) is actively involved in the business's management. By my understanding, this would include all the executives you've mentioned above. Contrary to all the other answers so far, the fact that the employee is salaried is not sufficient to remove him from the protections of FLSA, which applies to both hourly and salaried employees. Some hourly employees are covered; some are not. Some salaried employees are covered; some are not. For more details on determining whether a salaried employee is exempt or nonexempt, you can review the Department of Labor Fact Sheet #17G.
The German law mandates minimum notice periods for work contracts. But there is no restriction on maximum notice periods, as long as the employee does not have a longer notice period than the employer (§622 BGB de|en). So yes, in theory you could negotiate that the company is not allowed to fire you in the first 4 years. But I would find it unlikely that they would agree to that. When the stock options are really your only reason why you want to avoid getting terminated in the first 4 years, then they are more likely to be open to negotiations about the stock option clause than about the termination clause.
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.
First of all, there is no breach - they said they would pay it "over the course of the first year"; in what way is the first week not part of the first year? Second, breaching a contract doesn't always allow the aggrieved party to terminate it: in fact, being able to terminate is only for the most egregious of breaches or ones that are specifically spelled out as giving a right to termination. For example, failure to deliver (or pay) on time or in full would not allow termination, only damages.