[scolson]

Obviously, they should consult a lawyer, but I want to clarify this point, because the parent comment can be very misleading.

If you have a specific employment contract, all bets are off and only your lawyer and the courts can really determine what is/is not a permissible dismissal.

Assuming no contract, "cause" needs vary by state, so you can't just trust the parent message. In At-Will states, most of the time, you can be fired for any reason (except protected reasons) at any time including "asking too many questions", "asking the wrong questions", "not asking enough questions", or "he/she looked at me funny and I was in a bad mood." All are perfectly valid reasons for an on-the-spot dismissal in an At-Will state.

Now where it gets trickier is filing for unemployment. This can be harder to navigate than simple At-Will rules. In my state, all of the following will be docked against the employer for unemployment compensation:

* Just felt like firing someone

* Asks too many/not enough questions

* Constant quality issues

* Couldn't actually code and in a developer role

In all of the above, it is expected that the employer either should have figured it out before hiring, or should train/retrain to address the situation.

If an employer fires you for a policy violation, then unemployment will not be charged back to the employer (and likely the employee is not "unemployment eligible"). Usually this involves a longer paper trail with multiple meetings and "official" written notice of a policy violation in your company file before being terminated. Generally, this is a CYA thing for the employer so you cannot claim "you didn't know."

Protip: If there is a bs policy that everyone violates, you can still be fired for-cause for violating it. Chances are if this happens, someone really doesn't like you and they want a good reason to get you out.

But in all cases in an At-Will state, you are still out of a job.

(PS: You notice I do not name my state. Since this is an already tricky situation, assume my state is fictitious, and the rules and experiences are equally made up. Ask your lawyer or the equivalent of your state's (un)employment department/commission/branch for how things apply in your state.)

[JamesBarney]

I think you are confusing termination in an at will state with "termination-with-cause" which means that you cannot collect unemployment, and cannot be rehired by the same firm.(or maybe I'm wrong)

When someone asks if you've been fired by a previous company usually they are asking about the second. They will call the previous company and ask if you are eligible for rehire.

[scolson]

No, not confusing it. Your original message was WRT paper trail, which is not required in all cases.

To your message here, fired means something very specific. Though fired can be for cause or no cause. And the reason of cause matters for unemployment.

Laid off means something else.

So really, there are four categories from an unemployment standpoint:

1. Fired - policy violation

2. Fired - "incompetent" (note: in the eyes of the employer)

3. Fired - no cause

4. Laid off

Both 1 and 2 are bad for new job prospects. 3 is hit and miss from a job prospect perspective, but still generally negative. 4 has no impact.

For unemployment in my state, 2, 3, and 4 will all let you collect (and bills back to the company who terminated the working relationship) where #1 makes you unemployment ineligible.

Circling back to your original message about paper trail, #1 is the only one that companies essentially always keep (or should keep) the paper trail for in my state, because it is the only one that is needed to to defend the company in an unemployment hearing if it ever gets there. For the other categories, there may or may not be a paper trail, and it certainly isn't required.

[JamesBarney]

Do most companies when contacted by future prospective employers disclose which of these 4 was the reason for termination?

[scolson]

Depends on who is asking, what they ask, and for what reason. Though it is generally avoided.

If it is a simple reference check (never minding why a terminating company would be listed as a ref...) then as little information as possible would be given; possibly as small as "so and so no longer works here and that is the limit of what we can disclose with them" in order to avoid a bad reference lawsuit.

If it is an employment verification firm, depending on how rigorous the verification, it may come up by direct questioning and this should be expected by all parties.

Some companies do have strict policies about not disclosing some/all details. I am aware of a few firms, that wether good or bad, have policies against providing any reference, similarly, to avoid any potential lawsuit.

Now, when it comes to unemployment, if an ex-employee files a claim, the gloves will very likely come off. If the company can avoid a claim being made against their account, that is the difference of a lot of money on a recurring basis. So in this sense, reason very much matters.

[frenchman_in_ny]

And if you have a specific employment contract (and you're in an at-will state), take a close look at it since it likely includes an arbitration clause.

So going to a lawyer & the courts might make you feel like you're going to get a resolution, but likely you aren't going to get very far.