[dragonwriter]

> Terminating because the employee was not working out is not a prohibited reason.

Its not even a reason, its just a semantically empty phrase. But in any case, I didn't say there was a prohibited reason here, I said that the claim that "at-will employment" means you can hire or fire "for any reason" is false.

[Alupis]

We're arguing over semantics now... you get the point I was making. The big picture is the founders felt the OP wasn't going to work out -- and made a very appropriate decision to cut him loose now instead of later.

[x0x0]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Read the chain. Nobody is arguing the company couldn't let him go. Rather, people are upset the founders didn't make it right for him. Frankly, they are assholes. Decent people would say something like, "Hey, this isn't going to work. We fucked up, and we're sorry. Here's two months of comp (or maybe six weeks) to find a new job, regain leases or find a new apartment, etc. And on the off chance you put this on your resume, we'll serve as a reference."

[Alupis]

Make it right? Why do you feel they are obligated to pay him for work he did not do? Severance is optional, and a benefit of working at larger companies (of which a startup is not). Startups pivot quick and often (as it seems they did here), and usually don't have loads of extra cash laying around to do things like severance until they "make it".

Again, we have one side of the story here, and with only one side, people are jumping to conclusions. What if the founders came on and said the OP lied about his qualifications? Letting emotions get in the way of business is a fast way to fail.

Quite frankly, and in your words, the OP "fucked up" by committing to a startup before even having a Visa he pointed out is/was important, and from the sound of it, may not have even been an official hire with contracts signed. He did work, and if he was an official hire, he would have already been paid for said work.

Being told you will be a COO is not the same as actually being the COO. That would be as-if I told a gardener I thought I might hire him, then come home one day and he's cut my yard and demands payment. If i was hired on as a COO with a startup, you bet my contract would have specific terms for which I may be terminated. Why did the OP not have something similar?

The bottom line -- it's nothing personal, it's business.

Startups are not big corps. They aren't going to do big corp things like severance. If that's not acceptable to you -- do not sign on with a startup. In a few months the OP will be in a new job and will look back on this as a learning experience - one that he will be a stronger individual from and perhaps more cautious in the future.

[dragonwriter]

> Why do you feel they are obligated to pay him for work he did not do?

From the account given, he did do work remotely.

> may not have even been an official hire with contracts signed.

A contract generally doesn't need to be signed to be valid (there are specific exceptions to this, but employment contracts generally aren't exceptions), it can be oral, and, accepting the account given by the OP, offer, acceptance, and performance under the contract are all evident.

[Alupis]

If the OP did actual work, and was an official hire with either verbal or written contract, then he would have already been compensated for his time. (Otherwise that would be a violation of the law, and I seriously doubt a startup is trying to get away with not paying for work done "on the clock")

If the OP did actual work, and was not an official hire with either verbal or written contract, then he was an eager beaver and jumped-the-gun, which is understandable, but ultimately would be his mistake. (I refer back to my gardener example above).

People seem to be arguing the startup owes him some sort of severance -- which is ridiculous unless it was in his employment agreement.

The OP will look back on this and learn some valuable and long lasting lessons from this ordeal.

[dragonwriter]

> If the OP did actual work, and was an official hire with either verbal or written contract, then he would have already been compensated for his time. (Otherwise that would be a violation of the law, and I seriously doubt a startup is trying to get away with not paying for work done "on the clock")

I think that we agree that the startup would be breaking the law. Where we disagree is that you seem to think that "It would be illegal, and therefore it didn't happen" is a valid line of reasoning.