[traviswingo]

I would honestly refrain from telling people you were fired in that case, and simply state you were laid off. I would then begin to infer that something fishy was going on internally and that you're probably better off not being involved with the company anymore.

It really sounds to me like management didn't know how to deal with the situation and a "performance review" was simply their scapegoat, and not the reality of why they let you go. I wouldn't be surprised if you were performing at a high level and they were just trying to cut the team down to the originals. These things happen all the time. Good luck to you!

[kyrra]

Agreed. If your former employer is smart, they won't say much beyond "yes, that person worked here" when contacted by any company that is looking to hire you. If they say anything that directly results in you being denied a job, it opens them up to lawsuits. (at least that's my understanding)

[mgkimsal]

> If they say anything that directly results in you being denied a job, it opens them up to lawsuits.

This is the received wisdom, but not sure it happens. It might be something that happens at high levels, but it's uncommon for most people to even get a rejection letter or email in the first place, this notion of companies badmouthing you then them telling you that's why you were not hired is just... weird.

Someone would have to call/email your former company, they'd have to put something in writing (or recording) that specifically was negative about you, the company you are applying to would then need to keep a record of that, and then tell you why you weren't hired was because of that negative information.

Has that ever happened to anyone?

It feels to me like the 'lawsuits!' excuse is mostly a smokescreen to cover people being lazy, rude or incompetent at their job of actually managing a hiring process.

[webmaven]

Here is how it happens:

You're applying at a bunch of places, some of them being internal referrals from friends of yours. After a while you notice that all of your job applications are fizzling out, so, frustrated, you start asking for feedback (especially since a friend of yours kept getting rejected for talking about SOA instead of RESTful APIs).

The answers you get aren't helpful, like "we just felt that you weren't a good fit", and in a couple of cases somewhat antagonistic.

Eventually, you hear through the grapevine that you might want to check the references you're using.

So, you get your Significant Other to pose as an employer checking your employment history and references, while they record the calls with an app.

Guess what? One of your references is actually trashing you, saying you were unreliable and a troublemaker. It also turns out that another reference just blows everyone off and never returns calls.

Ta-da! You have a recorded evidence. BIG PROBLEM for the reference that bad-mouthed you.

[scribdjobs]

There's also "back channel" references. If there are some red flags but someone at the hiring company knows someone who worked with that person, they often reach out to get feedback from someone who worked with the candidate directly. Many companies do this during early stage interviews to see if they should continue. They're not official references by any means but pretty common in a small community like the Bay Area tech industry.

[mgkimsal]

Cue people spouting how it's illegal for you to record a conversation.

[sli]

I suppose one could sidestep it by requesting permission to record for "review with the rest of the hiring team." Probably not a good idea, though.

Confronting them on the phone is probably a worse idea, though.

Realistically, though, if you're job hunting, filing lawsuits might not be the best use of time.

[wayn3]

lots of places in the US where recording a conversation is legal if one party of the conversation agrees to it (in this case, the party that does the recording)

[webmaven]

Bingo.

[scribdjobs]

Definitely make sure you're giving references who are reliable. But why would /anyone/ give a reference who would badmouth them?

[webmaven]

Haven't you ever been surprised to find out that someone didn't like you?

[slgeorge]

It may not happen, but many companies believe it could happen. Consequently, they say next to nothing about ex-employees - only the dates of employment. If you're the company being asked for the reference there is no upside in you saying that Joe was fired - why would you want to help another company, and why would you want to risk (however infinitesimal) a law suit. This is commonly defined by policy, simply ask the last company that you worked at what their policy is for references and what data they will reveal.

[hanginghyena]

Sadly that is trivial to get around these days, especially if someone at the new company knows someone at the old one.

Most professionals I know are happy to "bend" policy to give a respected colleague or personal friend a good reference, especially if that person is on the street.

If the company clams up and limits its response to name, rank and serial number, that's a huge red flag.

[jrnichols]

I've worked for places that will not say anything about you at all. Nothing. They refuse to even say if you worked there or not, instead referring you to a service they use called The Work Number or something like that.

It's really frustrating to try to look for a job when your potential employer really has a limited way of checking your references.

[mgkimsal]

I get that part, but even if past employer A said something to potential B, why would B say anything to me? It's just going to involve them in something they don't want to be part of in the first place.

[scribdjobs]

HR professional weighing in here :)

You are correct. It's not just "if they're smart" it's "if they're complying with the law." Former employers are only legally allowed to confirm employment, salary (yes, really), and whether or not you're eligible for rehire.

[driverdan]

How is it illegal? Source?

Do you mean they're opening themselves up to a lawsuit by saying anything else? If so, that's different than being illegal.

[liquidcool]

What state? Employment law varies considerably from state to state, and I didn't think that's federal law (but IANAL).

[marme]

it opens them up for lawsuit because they could have slandered you resulting in you losing a job opportunity. It does not mean the former employee will win but if you did say something that is grounds for the lawsuit which you will have to defend and prove what you said was all factually correct. It is cheaper to just settle with the former employee rather than pay lawyers to defend the suit even if you have 100% chance of winning. This is why no company will say anything other than yes that person worked here from x date to y date and maybe a handful of other benign facts about your employment such as your title

[JamesBarney]

Most companies will answer two questions "When did Joe work here, and is Joe eligible for rehire?" This is why it's important for him to figure out if he was terminated-with-cause or not. If this was the case then he is not eligible for rehire and when a company does a background check Joe will run into this issue.

[beachy]

Do you have any evidence about that? We are in the HR software field and in my experience being"eligible for rehire" is not a binary fact, and even if it was it might not be at the fingertips of the person giving the reference.

[JamesBarney]

This was my understanding talking to a couple of friends who were in H.R. They said their company's policy was to only let them answer these two questions. And they implied that this was similar for several other companies they worked for.

So what I'm drawing this conclusion from is definitely anecdotal.