Teenage Daughter Wrongfully Terminated

My 16 year old daughter was recently terminated from her position as a veterinary technician at our local vet during a visit to the emergency room. Although I had promised her that I would pull her from the ER and drive her to work if it took too long to get a diagnosis for the illness she and her siblings had been suffering from for three weeks (and she showed up for work every shift although she was sick by the way...early for every shift every time she was on the schedule), she sent a text to her direct supervisor to ask if she would be in trouble if she was a bit late for her shift. As I was on the way to drive her to work fifteen minutes before the start of her shift as usual, her supervisor called her cell phone and told her not to bother reporting in to work...they were letting her go. I was told their policy was that employees had to give two weeks notice prior to taking time off unless it is an absolute emergency. Not only is going to the emergency room on the orders of your primary doctor what I would consider an emergency, but I pulled her from the hospital anyway and was on the way in to drop her off for work.

When I called the supervisor to ask why she was terminated and why she was not given any written termination, etc. I was hit with a brick wall and she said that she could not legally discuss the situation with anyone but my daughter (only 16 at the time and my legal responsibility until she is 18 when I pointed out that the reasons she gave were in direct conflict with what she had reported to my husband and I just the night before when we came to pick her up after her shift. To date, I have not received any written termination, her final paycheck, or the letter of recommendation the office manager promised me a week and a half ago now. Can someone tell me what my options are legally in this matter? I would appreciate any advice that can be offered here.:wallbang:
We live in Prince William County, VA if that info helps in looking up the statues in this jurisdiction.

Nothing in your post constitutes a wrongful termination under the law. Legally, a wrongful termination means that a LAW, not a company policy, was violated by the termination.

No law requires them to provide a written notice of termination.

They are quite correct that they have no legal obligation to discuss her employment with you or anyone else except your daughter.

So she is basically screwed and any company can fire a person for going to an emergency room even though they leave it in time to be early for a scheduled shift? Welcome to the real "messed up" world. She's not a legal adult; however, so I have every right to at the very least demand her final paycheck and a formal written termination notice. In Maryland, there has to be three formal written warnings in a person's personnel file before a company is permitted to fire them by law, so I would have to guess that there are at least some legal safeguards to protect employees in Virginia.

Thanks for the input, but I will research on my own.

I dont think that is correct post the legal statute that requires an employer to give such written warnings before termination.

In Maryland, there has to be three formal written warnings in a person's personnel file before a company is permitted to fire them by law, so I would have to guess that there are at least some legal safeguards to protect employees in Virginia.

There is no such law in MD, VA or any other state.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but according to my mother who worked in Bethesda, MD for 17 years she was informed by her company that Maryland law required 3 written warnings in an employee's personnel file before they could lawfully terminate an employee. She worked for Lexis Nexis which provides law libraries and legal information to attorneys all over the world, so if it is not Maryland law perhaps it was simply company policy (published public company policy) as was the policy my daugher received from the vet she worked for which clearly stated that she was to give two weeks notice prior to missing a shift and find someone to cover unless it is an absolute emergency.

Since she was not even going to miss the shift, and was going to leave the emergency room (which was clearly an emergency) in time to be early for her shift but was told not to bother coming in by a supervisor who was looking for reasons to get rid of her due to her ADHD (discrimination on the basis of a medical condition-even though it is controlled by medication) and the fact that she blew the whistle on the supervisor for abusing the animals in their care (aside from the fact that she was physically harsh with the animals in the kennels a prime example is the day she sprayed a poodle in the mouth and nose to the point of impairing its ability to breathe and making it choke on the water-just because it wouldn't stop barking and she wanted it to shut up)....there are two issues at play: public policy of the company that I have in writing was violated and one could also say she was a "whistle blower" because she expressed her concerns about the supervisor to the vet who owns the practice.

(all of this is vague theory of course, but can you blame a supportive mom for being more than a bit upset over watching her daughter risk her health for three weeks with a mystery illness it took 3 primary care physicians and an ER doctor to finally diagnose and treat to do her job well and then to be slapped in the face with a "don't bother to come in today...we need somebody who isn't sick--all over one visit to an emergency room!)

I suppose we should have all seen the writing on the wall and in the end she's a young, ambitious girl who will move on to another vet and thrive in her career well through the veterianary training to ultimately become a vet. It just seems like such a grave injustice to me that she could be treated that way and have no legal recourse at all.

Here is the info I was able to locate thus far...I don't have much time to research further this evening, but if I can get the information later this week I will be sure to send it through.

Violation of Public Policy
Although an employee who is discharged because of his or her race, sex, religion, national origin, or disability, for example, will have a remedy against an employer under state and federal statute, some violations of public policy are not clearly spelled out by statute. In cases where an employer clearly violates an important public policy in firing an employee, most states will allow the employee to recover against the employer in a wrongful termination action. In such cases, punitive damages, in addition to back pay or front pay, may be awarded.

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
In addition to providing a wrongful discharge remedy where an employer has violated public policy, a fewer number of states allow a wrongful termination claim by an at-will employee based upon the theory of a breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In such cases, the employee alleges that the employer breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by firing him or her.

I would strongly suggest this was not the underlying reason for the termination. While you protray a model employee, most employers do not get rid of model employees as they are hard to find.

If you believe she was terminated due to an illegal action, contact an attorney or the EEOC but honestly, from what you have postd this last time, I suggest there is little to no true evidence that would support such a charge.

not sure of your claim of having the policy that ws violated. The only company policy I read was the one that stated unless the absence is an emergency, the employee is rerquired to give 2 weeks notice and find a replacement for the missed time.

Was there one I missed?

That does not mean they cannot terminate you because of that, it simply states they reserve the right to terminate should you not follow that rule, which isn;t even applicable in this situation.

It may have been company policy. I can tell you for certain, no state has such a law.

A law requiring any number of written warnings before someone could be fired, would mean an employer who caught an employee red-handed stealing, or who committed workplace violence, or who sexually harassed someone, would have to get two more bites at the apple before they could be fired. Do you really think any state is going to limit an employer that way?

Quote:

---

Quoting alicia6266

---

So she is basically screwed and any company can fire a person for going to an emergency room even though they leave it in time to be early for a scheduled shift? Welcome to the real "messed up" world.

---

You are right, it is a screwed up scenario. At will employment is a basis for serious abuse of employees in the workplace.

Even if an employee is terminated for an illegal reason, an employer is not going to admit it, this would be legal suicide. The potential plaintiff in any wrongful discharge action has the burden of proof. I do NOT by any means consider the playing field level concerning at will employment because an employee can quit at any time also, this is just not a rational equality.

Even IF a settlement is reached after a lawsuit, the settlement agreement will include a clause by the employer such as:

"We admit NO liability, but do to the fact of the cost of litigation etc., we feel it is in the best interest to come to equitable terms of a settlement".


In my research of employment law, I have only come across 2 cases/lawsuits where an employer has admitted what the plaintiff said was TRUE, BUT this was only because they thought they were smart, but they outsmarted themselves.


As CBG does, I have some employment law knowledge also, and from the facts presented, unless there is some "hidden" law which prohibits a termination per your facts, which is extremely unlikely, it is a legal discharge.

Unfair and outrageous, yes, but this does not equate to being illegal.

Company policy/handbooks have been the basis of so called contract law in addition to statutory and common law, true, but an attorney in your state is the only one who can evaluate the law.

On a closing note, best wishes to your daughter, although I am sure, at age 16, she already feels betrayed by the employment world and has a sad outlook on what is ahead out there. Employers have always ruled the workplace with an "Iron fist", and always will.


BOR (Bill of Rights)

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

It may have been company policy. I can tell you for certain, no state has such a law.

A law requiring any number of written warnings before someone could be fired, would mean an employer who caught an employee red-handed stealing, or who committed workplace violence, or who sexually harassed someone, would have to get two more bites at the apple before they could be fired. Do you really think any state is going to limit an employer that way?

---

I have this case in my notes, since you enjoy employment case law decisions, check this one out. How would you like to be fired for defending yourself during a robbery when you thought you were going to be killed??

This man filed suit in state court/then removed by the defendant to federal court, and the District court asked WV's highest court, in most states known as the Supreme court though, to certify a question of law as to what a "public policy" exception to a wrongful discharge was? I do NOT know how the case was resolved in federal court though.

Ever hear of this one:


"The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia presents, for resolution by this Court, the following certified question: “Whether the right of self-defense is a 'substantial public policy' exception to the at-will employment doctrine, which provides the basis for a wrongful discharge action?”


CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we answer the question certified by the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia in the affirmative, but with limitation. Thus, the right of self-defense in response to lethal imminent danger is a substantial public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine and will support a cause of action for wrongful discharge. An aggrieved employer may then rebut the presumption of a wrongful discharge by demonstrating that it had a plausible and legitimate business reason for terminating its employee.

Certified Question Answered.




http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/docs/fall01/29564.htm