Termination Reason Changed and Terminated for Actions on Meal Break

My question involves labor and employment law for the state of: California
Can an Employer change the reason I was fired in California? I was originally terminated for harassment and three months later after challenging the termination they changed the reason to Serious Misconduct. Additionally, the actions for which I was terminated for occured on my meal break. I did not believe I could be fired for actions which occured on my meal break as "the employer must reliquish all control over an employee" while on meal break.

An employer may change the reason an employee was fired in all states, although I'm not quite sure I see it as a change in your case. Harassment most certainly can be considered serious misconduct.

You absolutely can be terminated for things that happen on your meal break. Just because the time is within your control and not the employer's does not mean that you are free to do anything you like without any repercussions.

Either issue may or may not affect your unemployment benefits but it is not in any way illegal.

Can an Employer change the reason I was fired in California? Yes, although I don't see that they actually changed the reason. It's not like they told you they fired you for poor attendance and then at a later date said you were fired for theft. Harassment IS a form of serious misconduct.

Additionally, the actions for which I was terminated for occured on my meal break. I did not believe I could be fired for actions which occured on my meal break as "the employer must reliquish all control over an employee" while on meal break. Relinquishing control over an employee on a meal break has only to do with wage and hour laws. You need not be paid for your meal break if you're not perfomring any work. Your employer is completely and lawfully entitled to hold you accountable for appropriate standards of conduct on your meal break or any other time.

Break time ! Honk Honk ! Funny.

The employer changed the reason they terminated me was because it was deemed my actions were not harrassment and could only be considered serious misconduct. This is the last reason for termination listed as sort of a catch all in the employee handbook. The actions I was terminated for was for scaring someone in response to them scaring me earlier in the night. It happened on two occassions. I just wanted to clarify and wondered if it changed the legality in any way. Also if they terminated me for actions on my meal break could it be argued that they did not "reliquish control" and I should have been paid for this meal break?

I just wanted to clarify and wondered if it changed the legality in any way. No. If they wanted to recategorize your termination as "acting like an idiot" they're free to do so.

Also if they terminated me for actions on my meal break could it be argued that they did not "reliquish control" and I should have been paid for this meal break? No. As stated above, "relinquish control" applies only to wage and hour laws and the requirement that you be relieved of all work duties if the break time is unpaid. Your employer ABSOLUTELY may continue to enforce standards of behavior while you are on your meal break. Using your rationale, then employees would be free to punch the CEO in the nose on their meal break with no repercussions. Not gonna happen.

You're trying to split a legal hair that doesn't exist.

Thank You for such a quick reply. I appreciate the input, however, they would not be permitted to list "acting like an idiot" as a reason for firing me because it would violate the employee promise as it does not fall under any of the categories for reasons for termination.

I don't believe that punching someone in the nose is an appropriate analogy to compare against scaring someone as one is illegal and the latter is not illegal. I was working under the assumption that obeying standards of behavior could be considered work duties. Additionally scaring someone is not serious misconduct in my eyes, otherwise I would not have done it to begin with. I personally feel that if they hold you to behavior standards while on an unpaid meal break they are not "relinquishing control" and the meal break should be paid. How is holding employees to standards which are only applicable at work on their meal break different from holding them to standards while they are not at work at all? Isn't a meal break supposed to be the same as personal time away from work?

they would not be permitted to list "acting like an idiot" as a reason for firing me because it would violate the employee promise as it does not fall under any of the categories for reasons for termination. Not permitted by whom? This is a matter of internal company policy and if they want to self-impose categories for termination, they can, and if they want to change the list to include "acting like an idiot," as a termination reason, they can do that too.

How is holding employees to standards which are only applicable at work on their meal break different from holding them to standards while they are not at work at all? Isn't a meal break supposed to be the same as personal time away from work? No and it doesn't matter.

You can be lawfully terminated for "harassing" (or whatever you want to call it; it's just semantics) another employee on your unpaid meal break or at the mall on a Sunday. No laws prohibit your employer from terminating you for off-duty conduct that they deem harmful to the company, its employees, or otherwise inappropriate. I have indeed terminated employees for harassing conduct towards another employee while both were off-duty and off company property.

Honestly, the legal hair you're trying to split just doesn't exist.

I just have one more question. Are you a lawyer?

Google, at-will employment. There is NO legal truth to the premise that unless the reason for your termination is listed in the employee handbook, you cannnot be termed for that reason. I'll bet the employee handbook doesn't specify that you can be fired for setting fire to the boss's office, but I can guarantee that you can be and that it will stick. Nor is there any legal basis to believe that you have to agree with the employer's assessment of why you were fired or with what is considered misconduct; your agreement is not required.

Unless a legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA specifies that you can ONLY be fired for A, B, C and D, you can be fired for any reason not specifically protected by law.

And no, I am not an attorney. However, I have been working in HR for over 30 years (as has Beth) and probably know what is legal and not legal with regards to disciplinary actions in employment than a real estate attorney or tax attorney or even a criminal attorney.

If you do not believe the answers you're getting here, you are perfectly free to contact as many attorneys as you like (and are willing to pay for) to see if you can get one of them to tell you something different. If they do, though, be sure to get the statute or case law that they claim makes your termination illegal, because I'd really like to see it in that case.

Thanks for your opinions. I doubt that your 30+ years of experience in HR make you more qualified than any attorney. Try and go to court and explain that reasoning to a judge. I appreciate your time.

So you think that an attorney who practices other areas of law and hasn't done anything with employment law since the one mandatory course in law school twenty years ago, knows more employment law than someone who works with it every working day?

I see.

Well, in that case, please go right ahead and call any employee you care to, and see what they tell you.

No I just know that you are not as qualified as an attorney in the respect that you are not allowed to represent someone in court. A little defensive about not having our J.D. aren't we? Also California Labor Law is much different than Massachusetts Labor Law. Read up on the Brinker Case in CA Supreme court and you will see I have a valid argument about me meal break. I was just trying to get some qualified opinions before my appointment with my lawyer on Friday. Thanks for your opinions.

I never said I could represent someone in court, and I wouldn't much care if I could or not. If I wanted to represent people in court, I'd have gone to law school.

I have employees in CA. I am aware of the Brinker decision and it does NOT say that you can't be fired for something you do during meal breaks.

Read up on the Brinker Case in CA Supreme court and you will see I have a valid argument about me meal break.

Sigh. No, you don't but please feel free to pay an attorney to explain this to you since you don't believe cbg or me. There is simply no question that you can be held accountable for your behavior by your employer while on your meal break.

There is simply no question that you can be held accountable for your behavior by your employer while on your meal break.[/QUOTE]

Agree completely. And before you try slamming me, OP, I teach lawyers this stuff.