[miked85]

> She offered to resign on a particular schedule

It is not out of the ordinary at all for companies to walk people out on the day of resignation. The company is not required or even expected to abide by whatever schedule is presented to them.

[bewaretheirs]

> It is not out of the ordinary at all for companies to walk people out on the day of resignation.

I've observed a few cases of this as a bystander. Generally, the employee escorted out had accepted a job offer from a competitor -- and that doesn't appear to be the case here.

[jlokier]

If the employee says "I'm giving you 1 month formal notice of resignation", and the company responds with "effective immediately you are terminated without pay or benefits", at that point it's not a resignation any more, it's a termination.

In most countries (which are not "at will"), I believe if the employee had not breached their contract they could claim wrongful termination in this scenario and likely be awarded the pay they would have received for the missing notice period.

This doesn't mean the company is obliged to keep the employee on premises, on the network, active etc. It is not uncommon to ask the employee to leave the premises, have security walk them out, disconnect from the network etc out of security/IP/morale/whatever concerns. But they would still be either technically employed and paid while the notice worked out or paid in lieu of notice.

[virgilp]

Employers just need to pay you whatever period is written in your contract (which may be longer or shorter than 1 month). Which may very well be what happened here - nobody claimed she's no longer paid a dime, just that she no longer has access to Google resources.

You can't just say "i'm giving you 1 month of formal notice of resignation" and expect the company to be bound to that month... otherwise, to take it to extremes, what's stopping you from giving them a 20years formal notice of resignation?

[jlokier]

In the US, in most states, 'at will' employment often means zero notice is required from either side. A contract can specify otherwise, as can other things (such as a company HR procedure).

> You can't just say "i'm giving you 1 month of formal notice of resignation" and expect the company to be bound to that month... otherwise, to take it to extremes, what's stopping you from giving them a 20years formal notice of resignation?

You actually can say that if you want.

What stops 20 years notice from having any effect is that the company can terminate you anyway in the normal way before that. I.e. they can still make you redundant, fire you, assess your performance etc in all of the usual ways, or in 'at will' locations just let you go without a reason. They will still be subject to discrimination law etc if they fail to comply with all the usual constraints on terminating employments, but nothing about your 20 year notice prevents them from following the normal rules at any time.

ps. I really meant to say "giving 1 month formal notice in accordance with my contract of employment", but I realised in the US people don't always have any notice in their contract (due to 'at will') so I removed the part about being in accordance with it.

Ignore employment as a special case for a moment. In general, for any contract (implied or not), parties can give each other advance notice of something that is going to take effect in future, as if they told the other party on the future date of the effect; the effect will not occur until that date. The other party in the contract can't just decide the effect has taken place earlier. You can also give conditions. In a sense, notice of this kind is just a courtesy, an advance warning if you like.

I believe in US 'at will' terms, Timnit effectively gave notice that she was going to resign at a specified future date under certain conditions. Timing had not actually resigned at the point at which Google is said to have terminated the employment. That makes it a termination.

[virgilp]

I was mostly disagreeing with "wrongful termination" - a "conditional resignation" is a good reason for termination, and there's nothing wrongful to terminate the employment earlier than his proposed terms as long as you respect the contract (pay for the notice period, to the extent that such period exists).

[miked85]

This is completely untrue, at least with 'at will' employments. Once you resign, you quit.

Working for any additional length of time after that often occurs if it is in both parties best interests. If it isn't though, the relationship is usually terminated immediately after resignation.

[jlokier]

> This is completely untrue, at least with 'at will' employments.

The sentence you are replying to literally excludes 'at will' countries from the scope of their point...

>> In most countries (which are not "at will"), ...

[miked85]

Sorry, I was replying to the first sentence.

[jlokier]

Then you are still mistaken.

Once you resign you do indeed quit.

But when you say you are going to resign at a future date, especially when you say you are going to resign at a future date only if certain conditions occur but will not resign if they don't... then you haven't resigned yet.

That's not special to employments. Similar applies to contracts in general, where a party tells the other party that at some future date, and/or under some condition, they are committing to exercise some clause in the contract. It's almost as if the message is a courtesy notice, an advance warning, of what the first party is going to do. They haven't done it.

In 'at will' locations the effect is much the same as quitting the same day because the company has the power to 'let you go' without giving a reason anyway - although the company must still comply with the contract, discrimination law, its normal operating procedure etc.

But even though the effect is much the same as quitting immediately - you are let go and employment ends - for anything where the difference between 'resigned' and 'terminated' matters, for example rights to government support, or loss-of-job insurance payouts, the company deciding to terminate early is a 'termination'.

[miked85]

> But when you say you are going to resign at a future date, especially when you say you are going to resign at a future date only if certain conditions occur but will not resign if they don't... then you haven't resigned yet

Maybe if you want to play semantics, sure. In the eyes of the employer though, you have effectively resigned.

[that_guy_iain]

I don't get why people keep mentioning how things are in other countries. We all know the US is bad for employee rights, why bring up how it is in other countries?

[jlokier]

Because people are debating whether it is a resignation (where the employee is in control of events), or a termination ("firing", where the company is in control of events).

Although US has 'at will' in most states, in many respects the way employment issues are judged in the US is similar to elsewhere. So the perspective elsewhere on what counts as termination seems relevant.

You're free to disagree, but that's why it's brought into the conversation.

[paperdropper]

I think it's good to remind people how terrible the US is when it comes to worker rights. Many people don't realize just how bad they've got it over there.

[IshKebab]

Are you sure she isn't being paid for her notice period?

[romanoderoma]

> they could claim wrongful termination in this scenario and likely be awarded the pay they would have received for the missing notice period.

Correct.

That's what happens in Italy for example and I believe in large parts of Europe (I know for sure France, Germany, Sweden and Spain)

The missing pay is granted anyway, but with a wrongful termination the employer will most likely obtain a fair compensation.

A couple decades ago I was awarded a year of salary + the 3 months of notice we agreed upon when I was hired, for a wrongful termination after an acquisition.