give 2 week notice vs waiting to be fired

[NotUrsula]

get fired. that way you qualify for unemployment. some companies bank on employees not know their unemployment rights. you may get a penalty but if you are not working i have rarely heard of anyone being denied unemployment for being fired, sometimes you take a penalty and get a short period you can not collect. also note what the policies are. if they say he violated a policy, did he know it? do they have it on file that this was explained to him and documented? i know people in HR and in our state if an employee disputes the unemployment refusal or claim of being fired it is the company's burden to prove the employee knowingly violated policies.

The bolded is not true in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is one of those states where if you are fired for cause, you are not eligible for unemployment benefits. You have to be laid off or have evidence that the employer was illegally discriminating against you. It is an at-will state -- they could say that they fired him because he wore an ugly tie to work, and that would be just fine.

 

[ArmyWife7]

The bolded is not true in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is one of those states where if you are fired for cause, you are not eligible for unemployment benefits. You have to be laid off or have evidence that the employer was illegally discriminating against you. It is an at-will state -- they could say that they fired him because he wore an ugly tie to work, and that would be just fine.

Not true in MS either. I've actually had employees ASK me to fire them so they could collect unemployment. Yes, the burden of proof is on the employer, but as long as I show you violated policy and knew about the policy, the employer wins the hearing.

 

[ArmyWife7]

This is very interesting to me, because this is what happened to my mother. She had a workman's comp claim and they 'terminated' her because even though they had a full work load for her between being a cashier and working in the office, (she worked in the office prior to the injury as well) they said they couldn't keep her on because other cashiers could sue that she wasn't required to do heavy lifting like they were.

Our insurance carrier doesn't allow employees to collect both unemployment and work comp. It's considered double dipping. Plus with unemployment you have to be willing and able to work. If a doctor hasn't released you to return to work without restrictions, then you are not able to work; therefore, not qualified for unemployment. At my company, I have a light duty program where I will return employees to work as soon as their doctor says they can perform light duty functions. Light duty may mean sitting in the back of the restaurant rolling silverware instead of bussing tables. I don't return anyone back to their position until the doctor fully releases them with no restricitons.

 

[mrsklamc]

Our insurance carrier doesn't allow employees to collect both unemployment and work comp. It's considered double dipping. Plus with unemployment you have to be willing and able to work. If a doctor hasn't released you to return to work without restrictions, then you are not able to work; therefore, not qualified for unemployment. At my company, I have a light duty program where I will return employees to work as soon as their doctor says they can perform light duty functions. Light duty may mean sitting in the back of the restaurant rolling silverware instead of bussing tables. I don't return anyone back to their position until the doctor fully releases them with no restricitons.

Workman's comp was paying for her physical therapy, but she was still working full time on light duty, so it wasn't like WC was replacing her income at all.

 

[ArmyWife7]

Workman's comp was paying for her physical therapy, but she was still working full time on light duty, so it wasn't like WC was replacing her income at all.

It's hard to know why they termed her without knowing their policy. Their light duty program may have a time limit. For example, if you aren't fully released by the doctor within 3 months, then they have to separate employment because you are not able to perform the essential job functions. Perhaps your mom used all her FMLA for physical therapy appointments (we run FMLA and WC concurrently). However, at the end of the day, if she wasn't released by a doctor to return to work without restrictions, then she wouldn't be eligible for unemployment because she isn't able to work.

I'm trying to think of an example of a medical case that would be given unemployment. Let's say I have an employee who is always calling out sick, but does not quality for FMLA. I eventually have to term the employee for exceeding the amount of attendance points within a year. If the employee is able to prove he was sick the days he called out, he would probably be granted unemployment. First, his termination was not misconduct connected to the work. Second, he is now able to work.

I hope this makes sense. Company policies can differ vastly so it is hard to know for certain without looking at the policy.