Hacker News Reader

Comment by bryondowd | Hacker News Reader

This just isn't true, at least in New Jersey. For NJ Unemployment, being fired only renders you ineligible if you are fired for misconduct, which is further defined as requiring intent or sufficient negligence to imply a disregard for the job. Meanwhile, employers aren't limited to firing you for misconduct or layoffs. You can be fired because you're just not a good fit for the team/position. In that case, you are eligible for unemployment because you didn't quit but didn't commit misconduct. If you asked to resign instead of being fired, you'd be giving up your right to collect NJUI.

I can't speak for other states, but I'd be surprised if NJ is entirely unique.

View on HN

No, what he said is true in NJ and generally all over the US.

While being "fired" is commonly used by laymen as a shorthand for being laid off, the two have very different meanings in practice (and very different legal consequences).

Being "fired" in the US means a termination "for cause", where cause generally means commission of a felony, morally reprehensible acts, deception in the hiring process, or violation of rules set forth in the employee handbook.

Being "laid off" means a termination for any reason other than for cause. For example, if you are terminated because you are a "Bad fit", you have been laid off, not fired.

If you asked to resign instead of being fired, it would have not affect on your right to collect NJUI, because you wouldn't be eligible either way. No one in their right mind would choose to resign over being laid off unless the company was offering a termination bonus that exceeded the foregone UI.

I've never heard of a termination based on individual performance being called a layoff. In fact, I'm fairly certain it's defined as a termination due to factors outside the employee's control. A layoff is when the position itself no longer exists due to downsizing, restructuring, etc.

Being terminated due to poor performance or a bad fit is not a layoff, by any standard I've heard of, and some brief googling seems to support that. Terminating an employee for being a bad fit and calling it a layoff would almost certainly invite legal action.

But I'm no lawyer, so if you've got a source backing up the claim, I'd love to see it and be enlightened.

You admit that you're not a lawyer, and then continue to argue about the meaning of terms which have defined legal consequences?

Your colloquial understanding of what "layoff" means is just that--a colloquial but not correct understanding. A layoff is legally just a not-for-cause termination of an employee by the employer. Down-sizing is a type of termination (and a type of layoff) which usually has additional legal requirements and consequences (mostly for the company).

Being terminated due to poor performance or a bad fit is not a layoff, by any standard I've heard of, and some brief googling seems to support that.

Cites needed. HR and legal sites only. You might be confusing the Canadian and EU sites that pop up as the first results as authorities on US law, which is very different. (Note: Canada does define "layoff" and "termination" to mean different things. The US does not.)

Terminating an employee for being a bad fit and calling it a layoff would almost certainly invite legal action.

Literally anything can invite legal action in the US. But terminating an employee for being a bad fit is precisely within the meaning of "layoff" and would not result in a successful legal action by the terminated employee.

But I'm no lawyer, so if you've got a source backing up the claim, I'd love to see it and be enlightened.

I charge $600/hour, if you want cites, however, Google is free if you remember to limit yourself to US sites. This ADP article (https://www.adp.com/spark/articles/2018/09/firing-employees-...) confusingly notes the difference between the two from a non-legal/non-HR perspective intended for layman employers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com