Yes. Most of the US is employment-at-will by default, which means that you can legally be fired without cause, notice, or compensation other than that due based on work prior to the moment of termination.
(Now, there are still reasons for which it is illegal to fire people, and, in part to avoid disputes over whether one of those were involved -- and, on the procedural end, in part to actually work to resolve issues that might be resolved short of firing -- employers will often apply substantial procedures before firing, and even when firing offer a severance package, potentially explicitly contingent on an agreement not to sue.)
It baffles me that it is legal to offer somebody anything "contingent on an agreement not to sue". How are disputes resolved ? Especially in this case there is almost a guarantee of a dispute, isn't there.
How would an employer defend that this agreement wasn't made under duress ? That both sides were equal partners in the negotiation about such a contract ?
I'd think the right to sue about anything is the most fundamental of the inalienable rights, because without it, the other rights wouldn't effectively exist.
When leaving a company they can't make you sign something, because no one can make you sign something.
But of course they can give something in exchange for signing something. You can think of it as a mini settlement.
I don't think it is great, because many people will just sign things thinking they have no choice, and the timing and mechanics of how these things happen are often used against people.
I've had exit contracts given to me. They were full of things that benefited the company and had nothing that benefited me. I said 'There's no benefit to me signing this, what do I get if I do?' They didn't offer me anything, so I didn't sign.
All 50 states have "at-will" employment, which means the employer can let the employee go or the employee can choose to leave at any time with no reason given. There are limitations on certain kinds of jobs, and severance packages are common but only for full-time or salaried employees I think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
While At-Will might suck the other side of it is not having to give 2-3 months notice which isn't that uncommon in the UK and some other European countries.
While you might be able to get out of those periods it makes switching a job quite hard, to near impossible especially if you have a rolling contract without a set expiration date.
Every coin has 2 sides, it's easy to look at things in the US and say it's wrong look at the Netherlands they need to drag you to court to fire you.
At the end both extremes result in conditions which are unfavorable to the employee rather than to the employer, you might get some peace of mind not fearing that they might tell you on a friday not to come next monday but with the opposite extreme employers don't want to give permanent contracts or when they do they lock you into such long notice periods that you'll usually have to just drop off all your stuff at 8 am leave a note with lawyer's contact details unless you find some company that will wait 2-3 months for you to give notice..
You do get unemployment insurance payouts if you are fired without cause. It's not a lot and it doesn't come directly from the employer. But indirectly it comes fm the employer because they get taxed based on how many former employees go on unemployment.
Most upper middle class jobs will give generous payouts.
Well, the fired worker who has cancer made a post where he thanked Ellen Pao and Reddit for paying for his COBRA insurance for up to a year after his firing. So, I'm not sure he was simply let go and that's that.
I'm not saying that Reddit isn't making mistakes, but I am glad that they at least finally tried to do something about the serious troll problems there.
I'm still waiting for a source that explains this mess without all the hyperbole and assumptions. However, I'm increasingly thinking that won't happen as it seems a lot of redditors have already made up their minds that this or that person is evil and this and that person is a godly saint.
I'd like to hear both sides of the stories, etc. before I make up my mind on this situation.
(Now, there are still reasons for which it is illegal to fire people, and, in part to avoid disputes over whether one of those were involved -- and, on the procedural end, in part to actually work to resolve issues that might be resolved short of firing -- employers will often apply substantial procedures before firing, and even when firing offer a severance package, potentially explicitly contingent on an agreement not to sue.)