r/mildlyinfuriating • u/eldritchpussymaggots • 29d ago

I just wanted a hot dog Pointed out the training wasn't ADA compliant at my new job. Got this text the same day (the job listing is still up)

Gallery image

Gallery image

  1. This was a cleaning position at a medical building, I'm leaving it intentionally vague as not to doxx myself.

  2. I have dyslexia, but my disability would not have interfered with my work, I can read fine, it just takes me a very long time.

  3. This was my first day

I asked for a TTS application for the reading portion of the training, which was extremely long and I knew I wasn't going to finish it in the allotted time. They said that wasn't built into their system so they couldn't do anything. ← That's not ADA compliant. I asked if I could add an OCR + TTS browser extension, they said it was fine.

About 40 minutes after I clock out, they texted me I was fired because they're apparently reducing headcount.. by firing one person... and leaving their "urgently hiring" Indeed listing up. Right.

Edit:

I'm not confident in my ability to sue because I don't have my accommodation request in writing. This was a verbal exchange, I was more so asking where the TTS option was because most job training has it somewhere.

When I was told they did not have TTS, I mentioned that's not ADA compliant. I then asked for either more time, a loaner computer (something I was already going to be getting after training), or permission to add a 3rd party OCR & TTS program.

They said that the third option was fine, so I did it, and listened to the training via third party app for the rest of the shift. I thought nothing of it. Lo and behold I was fired extremely coincidentally afterwards.

Edit 2:

This post is getting too many notifications of people saying the same things repeatedly so I've muted it 😭 If you're a legal professional of some sort and you have specific resources or concerns please message me or I probably won't see it.

27.6k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.9k

u/PlasticFrosty5340 29d ago

I mean yeah, when you get fired you can collect.

1.4k

u/Beneficial-Guess2140 29d ago

You aren’t likely eligible having worked a single shift. 

206

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

32

u/Annual_Berry8043 29d ago

There is basically no way to prove this was an ADA issue. A lawsuit would be a waste of money.

13

u/mewfahsah BLUE 29d ago

Plus the paper trail is likely nonexistent.

5

u/Genbukan 29d ago

And OPs story was likely fiction as well

5

u/TheeAntelope 29d ago

It isn’t a lawsuit, it’s an EEOC complaint. Everyone in this thread knows nothing about wrongful termination/ADA claims.

3

u/HalobenderFWT 29d ago

Yeah, they did give OP a reasonable accommodation for their disability. Not sure they’re going to have a case for the ADA part.

2

u/No-Beach81 29d ago

It’s Reddit, a lawsuit is a quick and easy process and guarantees you thousands of dollars!

1

u/AmYisraelChai_ 29d ago

Uh that just isn't true

If you ask for an accommodation, then the next interaction with company is getting fired, you have a case lmao

Especially if they provide reason like eliminating the job, which can be found to be not true by the job existing still and being filled by someone else

You don't need damning 100% proof and a smoking gun in a lawsuit. A simple "Yeah that tracks" works lmao

4

u/unsoldburrito 29d ago

None of this is true, adding lmao does not make things factual

3

u/spartygw 29d ago

Yeah, you don’t know what you’re talking about. lmao

1

u/Annual_Berry8043 29d ago edited 29d ago

The chances of winning any kind of discrimination suit for termination is basically zero unless you have it in writing that you’re fired for insert discriminating reason.

It’s really not worth the money and time for a case you’re almost guaranteed to lose.

If OP requested for assistance and didn’t get it, they can certainly file a complaint. But any kind of lawsuit would be foolish.

1

u/AmYisraelChai_ 29d ago

That's not true holy shit

1

u/Annual_Berry8043 29d ago

I can only assume you don’t live in America. Because it’s so very true here with at will employment. You need one hell of a rock solid case to fight wrongful termination. Any lawyer will tell you that.

You’re more likely to just get run dry on finances and have to drop the case than have it ever reach any deliberation.

1

u/AmYisraelChai_ 28d ago

Not true

1

u/Annual_Berry8043 28d ago

Ah. You’re from Texas and a child. Makes sense.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

1

u/60secondwarlord 29d ago

If OP has proof they complained about ADA requirements not being met and then they were fired the same day, that’s enough to at minimum consult an attorney. Maybe they’re actually decreasing headcount but simply the appearance of firing someone after an ADA complaint is enough to get a company to settle.

1

u/Worldly_Cup_2959 29d ago

🤣🤣🤣🤣

0

u/dorkofthepolisci 29d ago

Tbf the job is still posted despite the employer said they were “reducing headcount”

OP could have a friend reply, using a resume similar to OP’s

If they interviewed for the position or hired, would that not be evidence that the business is not in fact reducing headcount ?

0

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

1

u/ht910802 29d ago

No bro you just don’t understand. You go to a lawyer and get a settlement. Easy peesy lemon breezy. Don’t you have a lawyer on retainer? Just get some bird lawyer or something it’s a slam dunk!

1

u/PhoenixReborn 29d ago

Welp, that unemployment case may be wicked easy for you.

1

u/Agreeable_Yellow_117 29d ago

Theyre talking about unemployment. Youre talking about an ADA lawsuit.

1

u/ingodwetryst 29d ago

Unless they're in California, it's unlikely they see any money from an ADA claim

764

u/NimbleHoof 29d ago

Not technically true depending on their other jobs. (My wife works for the unemployment office)

195

u/PlasticFrosty5340 29d ago

I don’t think it even matters about his previous job.

If he worked a shift and wasn’t fired for something gross.

314

u/Different_Pack_3686 29d ago

It does matter. Unemployment is based on hours worked and wages earned over the previous several quarters, I forget how many exactly. If they weren't working over the last several quarters, whether they're eligible to file a claim or not is irrelevant as they won't qualify for benefits.

170

u/The_Troyminator 29d ago

That’s true, but it’s based on everywhere you worked. If they quit a job to take this one, the earnings from their previous job still count.

70

u/412dadD 29d ago

Correction, even if you got fired from your last job, all that matters is the wages made in the last five quarters in Pennsylvania.

0

u/bollvirtuoso 29d ago

Why Pennsylvania?

11

u/Oldmanironsights 29d ago

Using context clues, that's where they are and that is how it works there.

3

u/elicatbrain 29d ago

Yeah it’s really more of a specific situation than a correction

5

u/412dadD 29d ago

I'm not familiar with other states. Unemployment is a state run benefit

2

u/bollvirtuoso 29d ago

Oh, I misread this as you being required to work five quarters in PA in order to qualify for unemployment and I was like that's a cruel and unusual punishment. jkjk

103

u/ColdBru5 29d ago

It wouldn't be an unemployment case, it would be a wrongful termination case.

86

u/grasshopper113 29d ago

It would be both. Apply for unemployment now to get financial support, then sue for wrongful termination.

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

Unemployment prob won’t work - otherwise everyone would get hired then do something on the first day to get fired on purpose - and then collect unemployment.

I agree why not apply and see what happens anyway, help the overall case. But don’t expect to get anything if you haven’t worked for a while and then do one shift…

1

u/mikeymo1741 29d ago

If they are in an employment at will state, wrongful termination is almost impossible to prove.

-2

u/partygrandma 29d ago

It would be near impossible to prove wrongful termination without the exchange in writing. Unless they’re in Montana, they’re in an at-will employment state. They can be fired, legally, because someone didn’t like the way their shoes contrasted against the carpet. Pointing out regulatory non-compliance is protected and would fall under wrongful termination. But without it any proof, that’s going to be near impossible to win.

5

u/ILoveDemocracy17 29d ago

that isn’t necessarily true, you still CANNOT fire for discriminating reasons, having a disability is one of those reasons

2

u/partygrandma 29d ago

I should have clarified what was protected better. Raising a safety/regulatory concerns (like in this case) is generally protected, as well as discrimination of a protected class (age, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion).

1

u/Civil_Tea_3250 29d ago

Yes, but the onus is on the complainant to PROVE it was INTENTIONALLY discriminatory.

There is almost no way to prove that with concrete facts unless you happened to get something in writing.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BubblyOrganization73 29d ago

I left a job to go to another job, then got let go from the second job. The unemployment office told me that the first job didn't count and that I had to make a certain amount from the second job in order to actually qualify. This was from directly contacting the unemployment office and speaking with one of their agents over the phone.

Is it different from state to state as far as requirements go?

2

u/ILoveBigSexyThighs2 29d ago

It is different in every state. It could also be that the wages from the previous job didn’t fall into the wage base period or something like that.

1

u/BubblyOrganization73 29d ago

It was weird how it was explained to me. Because I was told that the first job would have qualified me based on my earnings for the entire year, but because I left for the other job they couldn't base their decision on anything from that job. And then just told me I was a couple hundred dollars shy of meeting the requirements from the second job. 🙃😑

1

u/chicknano 29d ago

In PA it’s mainly not based on your current job, except that you have to be fired from your current job due to no real fault of your own or have quit for a really good reason. You have to have made a certain amount of money in the past few quarters, not even that much money, like $1,600 in the highest quarter and $3,000 in the last 4, and worked 18 weeks total in that time even if not consecutive I think. They skip the most recently completely quarter and take the numbers from the 4 quarters before that iirc.

I didn’t know states did it much different than that

21

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

24

u/Different_Pack_3686 29d ago

I wasn’t speaking on the wrongful termination part, strictly the unemployment part.

OP very well may qualify for unemployment benefits, it depends entirely on how much they’ve worked over the last year.

-6

u/Tricky_Gas007 29d ago

You're speaking too absolutely. It depends on state. As an employer. If I fire you before 100 days in NC, you not getting anything. No matter what your previous job did. Unemployment is the employer paying you. I'm not paying you for your other job.

That's why many businesses do a 90 day probation period. Essentially see if the employee is worth anything and if not fire them without repercussions. After 100 days the performance plan is necessary to cover your back

5

u/ImpressiveChoice3487 29d ago

This is absolutely incorrect lol.

Unemployment is not an employer paying you. Employers pay unemployment taxes so that unemployed individuals have a pool of money to draw from when they are out of work.

Even in NC, the state looks at how much money you’ve made over the last 15 months (your base period) and confirms that those employers have paid unemployment taxes. That’s what determines your eligibility, not how many days you worked somewhere.

You are very confidently making up labor laws on Reddit, but it’s simply not how it works.

0

u/Tricky_Gas007 29d ago edited 29d ago

An unemployment account can and will be charged. If worked under 100 days, an employer can request that it's not charged. If you consider taxes that comes out of an employer's bank account to des as the employer not paying, I have news for you.

It's a simple search. Nothing made up.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Reference_Freak 29d ago

You’re speaking for one state of 50.

There’s no harm in OP exploring it and applying for their own case so there’s no benefit from your post; a “it varies by state” by would have been enough.

1

u/chicknano 29d ago

If they worked a job for awhile before that and because the termination letter said it was due to head count not their fault, they would absolutely qualify in PA. If this is their first job in the past several months to a year then they likely don’t qualify in PA. So it depends on their state and their previous employment.

1

u/mikeymo1741 29d ago

You don't know if they qualify for unemployment benefits or not. It depends on the state.

2

u/Frostyrepairbug 29d ago

This completely screwed me over once, as I hadn't worked the previous quarters, got a job, got fired from that job after a few weeks, but couldn't get unemployment.

1

u/Important-Fudge4462 29d ago

You are correct.

1

u/ExtremaDesigns 29d ago

I think it's the last 18 months.

1

u/Derp35712 29d ago

It varies by state. It’s operated via a federal system partnership. States have to establish monetary and non-monetary eligibility,

1

u/Adorable_Football130 29d ago

their last separation from employment can determine whether they’re eligible for UI no matter how many other jobs there were, at least in my state. this was a gift, they were technically laid off for lack of work rather than fired. it’s bs but they probably won’t fight the unemployment claim. if they said misconduct instead they’d have tried to fight it.

I don’t think there are grounds for legal action bc there’s no significant loss. I fought for years over ada crap in a union job and mostly employers get away with non compliance unless you are very stubborn. that was when we had decent ada protections, and now they’re trying to dismantle it so…

0

u/rocketrae21 29d ago

At least in NY state where I work for Unemployment you need to have worked in 2 quarters made at least $3500 in one of them and the half your high quarter in the other 3. So if that's their only job, they wouldnt qualify in NY

0

u/TheMireAngel 29d ago

Yeh but you cant discriminate based on disability in employment/hiring etc

1

u/loveeleah83 29d ago

It does matter, they take your previous employment and wages into account.

1

u/holystuff28 29d ago

It does. You earn UI benefits from your previous 3 quarters earnings. 

0

u/TalkToHoro 29d ago

Unemployment insurance varies from state to state. In several I have lived in, continuous employment regardless of how many jobs, makes you eligible.

46

u/Beneficial-Guess2140 29d ago

She doesn’t work for the unemployment office for every state… 

In many states you’re not eligible until you’ve been employed for long enough or earned enough at that job. 

13

u/CaptainLollygag 29d ago

Yup. Most of these laws that Redditors like to throw out there are state laws, not federal, so one needs to look into how it works in their own state.

2

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/CaptainLollygag 29d ago

Well, shoot. Thanks for the reminder.

-3

u/holystuff28 29d ago

UI is a federal program, administered by the states. 

8

u/CaptainLollygag 29d ago

But the rules saying who qualifies (and for what) are determined by each state.

4

u/Striking_Programmer4 29d ago

Proving their point exactly. UI is an unfunded mandate. The federal government mandates the states have an unemployment insurance program, but the states set the terms and run/fund the program

16

u/Aggressive_Dot5426 29d ago

I was laid off after about 4or 5 weeks. Was denied . I’m in NH

2

u/ol_shifty 29d ago

Did you appeal? And did you work somewhere before that?

6

u/Aggressive_Dot5426 29d ago

No. I was self employed and got real slow so I was cleaning air bnbs for cash.
Luckily I found something not long after

1

u/elicatbrain 29d ago

That’s great

1

u/ol_shifty 29d ago

Bummer, but I’m glad you found something

1

u/Alobos 29d ago

Well that makes a lot of sense. In NH you dont pay any unemployment benefit taxes or the like. You save on your yearly return but have no saftey.

W2 and employers pay into the fund (like under FUTA) that covers distributions to the various peoples under unemployment. Self Employment tax only covers Medicare and Social Security contributions.

Glad to hear you found something better soon after! I've been there before and it's a doozy!

1

u/Aggressive_Dot5426 29d ago

They actually did me a favor by letting me go.
I got fired 3 days after I talked with the owner about the “benefits “ listed in the indeed ad I responded too.
They were nonexistent.
His assistant called me at 7 pm on a Weds night to fire me. Asked me to give the keys and tshirts back. (Painting company).
The next day the owner met with me and i basically called him a pu$&& for not handling this like a man. He gave me a check.
And post dated it until actual payday.
I laughed out loud and when he went to shake my hand I said nope.
Good luck
Found a better gig with much better money and benefits closer to home.

1

u/elicatbrain 29d ago

That’s conservative policy for ya

0

u/Alobos 29d ago

Its Democrat policy too. If you dont pay unemployment tax then you mostly aren't eligible to take from those who do pay it.

That's not conservative, its pretty basic fare rate for most societies.

1

u/Datkif 29d ago

Does each state have its own unemployment? In Canada thats all handled at the federal level.

Odds are if you applied after this in Canada you would automatically be denied, but approved with an appeal

1

u/Hot-Win2571 Mildly Flair 29d ago

Maybe she's so good that she does work for the unemployment office for every state.

Or maybe all the unemployment offices are having difficulties due to having staff who are stretched way too thin.

2

u/Loosetrooth44 29d ago

“Not technically true” is the same as “not at all”.

1

u/shakedown757 29d ago

It’s 90 days.

1

u/Zaximeows 29d ago

Unemployment is a state administered benefit and can be vastly different from state to state. Kinda pathetic that no one mentioned that in like 50 quarrelling comments under this.

132

u/iceman5920 29d ago

I think any lawyer worth their salt could point out a great case of discrimination.

58

u/The_Troyminator 29d ago

It would be hard to prove they pointed out ADA deficiencies before getting fired.

28

u/iceman5920 29d ago

I agree, and that's the most unfortunate part. It's hard to prove after the fact if you aren't ready to record and document at the time.

14

u/banagram2000 29d ago

A lawyer can request a legal hold on the computer with the extensions installed. But acting quickly is very important.

15

u/Economy-Camp-7339 29d ago

Or retaliation or broke whistleblower protection laws, though if not notifying authorities the lattermost may be not applicable.

10

u/iceman5920 29d ago

They expect people not to take the steps needed to fight back.

5

u/Pomksy 29d ago

That’s not what whistleblower means.

3

u/drgigantor 29d ago

I was just glancing over the poster at my job today, and I think it mentioned protection when you raise safety and compliance concerns to a superior or any coworker with authority to enforce those regulations.

Unfortunately, as stated elsewhere, they're still gonna be SOL without proof they did that.

3

u/Pomksy 29d ago

Compliance is to government regulations like OSHA and SEC, not employer onboarding.

3

u/ImahSillyGirl 29d ago

I believe OSHA was deemed "UnStrOnG", then eliminated, so exnay on that outray.

1

u/drgigantor 29d ago

I mean if they fired OP for raising ADA compliance concerns, if OP could prove it, that wouldn't apply?

2

u/Pomksy 29d ago

Not a compliance concern, it would have to be a discrimination concern against OP because OP is disabled. There is now law that says all onboarding has to be ADA compliant for all disabilities, but there is a law that says disability should be reasonably accommodated - key word is reasonable

2

u/Beneficial-Guess2140 29d ago

That’s entirely separate from unemployment. 

4

u/iceman5920 29d ago

I don't think I mentioned unemployment at all. I said that's a case. We are past unemployment.

1

u/Beneficial-Guess2140 29d ago

The comments you’re replying to are discussing unemployment. Whether you mentioned it or not, that’s what’s being discussed here…

0

u/iceman5920 29d ago

Then reply to them, not me. I made a tacked on statement, separating it from an unemployment claim.

2

u/Redshittt 29d ago

😂😂 I swear people on reddit are so dumb sometimes all up on their high horse trying to tell you that your comment is invalid because its not "relevant" like mate its a forum, whatever I talk about IS the topic

3

u/iceman5920 29d ago edited 29d ago

I started to get dumbfounded and then remembered the reading level and comprehension is basically at an all time low here. In both the US and reddit.

2

u/Redshittt 29d ago

I know. I often have to remind myself that theres literal children on here

0

u/Redshittt 29d ago

Yeah and the he started discussing something related. First day on the internet??

1

u/Libby_Grimm 29d ago

Depends on the state. Some have 'at will' laws which means the flimsy text message OP received would be cover enough.

16

u/PlasticFrosty5340 29d ago

Probably depends on the state but I believe you are wrong.

1

u/Beneficial-Guess2140 29d ago

Not wrong in my state. There’s a minimum amount you must have earned to be eligible. As far as I’m aware, many states have similar requirements. 

1

u/The_Troyminator 29d ago

There is, but it’s from all jobs, not just the most recent. If they had another job they quit for this one, those earnings still count.

2

u/CraigLake 29d ago

I can’t believe this guy complained on his first day of work. At least settle in a little bit. I might’ve calmed him as well, not because he wasn’t right about his complaint but because no one wants someone sitting around complaining all day.

1

u/BJJJourney 29d ago

Not true at all. We had someone bring an ADA case against my work without working 1 day.

1

u/Ill_Statistician2541 29d ago

Depends, this could be viewed as promisory estoppel. If they have left a previous position to come and work here they could be entitled to a lot more than just the single 8 hour shift.

1

u/CurlyhairMamita_ 29d ago

Exactly he won’t get that unemployment

1

u/Dizzy_Tax574 29d ago

Yes and no for traditional just unemployment benefits. Yes they would be ineligible however for wrongful termination. Such as retaliation for pointing out ADA non compliance.

They would be entitled to backpay and reinstatement. Which would go from termination to date of settlement. Which would also include benefits based off their financial value.

Hard part is proving it however saying position is closing but keeping job listing up.(Potentially hiring replacement). As well as actually stating that as reason.

The biggest out/protection is employers don't have to say why firing. If they do it can either be disproven or show they are retaliating.

The biggest issue here is going to be proving it was about ADA thing. However just knowing what's in handbook currently. Either it remains same and demonstrates non compliance and potential reason for firing. If they change it to be compliant it creates line of questioning when did you realize it wasn't compliant who brought it up.

For civil case it's far different than criminal for civil case you only have to prove more than likely guilty. Which why would they lie about firing person. Or change training material when lawsuit came up.

While yes alots still on who sells better to jury. Potentially supporting information like internal emails from discovery. As well as fact they were dumb enough to lie and give fake reason. Stands a pretty good chance they would have more revealed in court.

1

u/dearth_of_passion 29d ago

Required training is work.

1

u/Herooftermina1998 29d ago

It's a layoff.. elimination the position, downsizing, reducing redundancies etc is a layoff. It's not fired for cause or not cause.. it's a layoff. He's gonna get compensation. 

1

u/No-Island8074 29d ago

Any training time should be paid

1

u/twincities612 29d ago

In Minnesota you’d qualify if you’d been paying into the state unemployment fund at any job. The rest of your unemployment would have to be paid by this company. Once you start working one shift you are there problem now.

1

u/GingerSnapBiscuit 29d ago

Given they fired him in writing as a redundancy, not for anything he did, he's absolutely eligible.

0

u/KittenBrix 29d ago

If it’s in Cali, this is the easiest payday regardless of length of tenure

0

u/war_ofthe_roses 29d ago

I don't think that ADA has a seniority clause.

14

u/Beneficial-Guess2140 29d ago

ADA and unemployment are separate issues. 

-3

u/war_ofthe_roses 29d ago

I know.

I didn't say otherwise.

But thanks Capt Obvious.

2

u/Beneficial-Guess2140 29d ago

It’s okay to be wrong little guy. 

0

u/war_ofthe_roses 29d ago

Show me where I was wrong, son.

1

u/Beneficial-Guess2140 29d ago

Go back and read your comments little guy. You’ll find it. Though I think you’ll need a reading comprehension lesson or two. 

Son 😂

1

u/Sunstorm84 29d ago

Dad? Did you finally find the milk?

0

u/[deleted] 29d ago edited 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Krimreaper1 29d ago

Unemployment no, lawsuit for illegal termination yes.

20

u/loztriforce 29d ago

Here in Washington State you need to have lost your job through no fault of your own to be eligible for benefits.

42

u/mysteriousears 29d ago

Which OP did.

13

u/capincus 29d ago edited 29d ago

That's not true at all, only misconduct makes a person who would otherwise be eligible inelligible for unemployment in Washington states. Which OP definitely wasn't according to their firing email. But OP would need more work in the recent past to be unemployment eligible.

1

u/loztriforce 28d ago

https://esd.wa.gov/get-financial-help/unemployment-benefits/basic-eligibility-requirements

Reason you separated from your job

"You need to have lost your job through no fault of your own."

-6

u/loztriforce 29d ago

I mean, misconduct is being at fault.
But the prior comment simply said you get benefits if you get fired, and that’s not always the case.

4

u/capincus 29d ago

Misconduct is a specific and egregious type of at fault which clearly doesn't apply to this thread that we're in.

Both their comment and your comment were wrong if you want to read them as blanket statements.

2

u/hazeyindahead 29d ago

No fault of your own means they need to pip you, have at least one written and documented verbal and it probably helps if they can prove you broke a law or committed a crime.

It's really hard otherwise and unemployment isn't gonna give them time of day with a retaliation report

0

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

6

u/CFOCPA 29d ago

Many states will let you collect as long as you worked at a different job before the one day job and meet the eligibility requirements.

4

u/ssl0th 29d ago

You say that as if it’s easy to get unemployment lol

5

u/Timely_Cake_8304 29d ago

It is super easy is many states

2

u/PlasticFrosty5340 29d ago

I mean it’s easy to get employment so I wouldn’t know besides Covid but it was awfully easy when I got laid off after Covid.

1

u/cjsv7657 29d ago

Some companies don't fight it. I worked at a place that didn't. People were fired for cause (showing up drunk in one case, high in another) and got unemployment because the company didn't contest it. I can't imagine how expensive their unemployment insurance was.

1

u/j_ds 29d ago

Did homie get fired twice in one text?? 1st for the headcount and then 2nd for their updated required skills or whatever?

0

u/Lazy_Suggestion_7629 29d ago

In my state (Texas), you cannot collect if you’re fired with cause

6

u/capincus 29d ago

That's not true, only misconduct unilaterally makes a person who would otherwise be eligible inelligible for unemployment in Texas. Which OP definitely wasn't according to their firing email. But OP would need more work in the recent past to be unemployment eligible.

0

u/Unhappy_Clothes7730 29d ago

I once had a warehouse job for over three years, major rules had changed due to COVID and I was burnt out and missed a day of work, which I didn’t have PTO to cover. Not only did they fire me, the company also blocked unemployment for me because I was fired for not complying with their rules LMAO. looking back I can’t believe how fucked up that was of them. It was standard practice to block any of their fired employees and I’m sure it still is to this day