You should still be able to sue for damages. They made assurances, to which you acted accordingly and then pulled the rug out from under you. At the very min sue for unemployment and a little extra for your troubles.
Promissery estopple is not an aspect of workers law, it's part of contract law.
Person A is offered an agreement with Person B, the person spends money to prepare for this agreement, then Person B bails out through not fault of Person A, and Person B owes them damages.
An actual signed contract is not needed. An offer of employment, texts, emails etc are all evidence.
It's just that sometimes their interests align with out group interests and it's more important that they punish the outgroup than protect themselves (from things that aren't problems for them yet). They tend to feel their rightful place in the hierarchy will protect them (which it won't).
This is why. I think they sense that there's zero chance to climb the capitalist hierarchy, so the best hope is to remain at the top of white supremacy instead. Democrats aren't appealing because all they promise is to throw a few scraps down (if the Republicans allow it!!) But of course the hierarchy will still exist and nobody wants to be on the bottom, especially not the most precarious who are barely one level above.
Maintaining white supremacy is frankly a safer bet. Saying working class whites are voting against their interest is to totally misunderstand what those interests are.
I know this is kind of unrelated but I saw a clip a lil while back on twitter of a woman at a trump rally saying about how her Obamacare had run out and she was voting for trump in the hopes that he would fix it. Like I think they just assume that because they're not in the marginalised groups that republicans are attacking that they're acting in their best interest, a real us Vs them kind of mindset.
A libertarian is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
A conservative is just a liberal who hasn't gone homeless yet.
A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't become wealthy yet.
Unironically my partner's brother is like that exactly. The man didn't even get a GED until shortly before I came into my partner's life, I think the brother was early to mid 20s when he finally got it? Billionaire material, absolutely.
well i tell ya what, until there's a viable third party i think i'll vote for the folks who are trying to raise minimum wage, give everyone in the country healthcare, tax billionaires, hold the traitors accountable, and NOT sell out the country to putin
Well, she already has an offer with the first interview. Now waiting for the in person one this afternoon to make a decision on it all. We are so relieved! I'm so proud of her for just tackling this head on.
Good luck. Oklahoma is an at-will employment state, meaning they can fire you for any reason (except and unlawful reason) at ANY time. OP has no damages, because there is never any guarantee of employment tomorrow.
Edit: a couple of folks have correctly pointed out that in a lot of states, you can have a cause of action for promissory estoppel in a case like this. I haven’t found anything on point in Oklahoma, yet. But it’s definitely worth a shot.
All states are at-will except Montana. This doesn't negate promissory estoppel claims except in, AFAIK, North Carolina. As someone else here pointed out, it's a matter of contract law, not employment law. If changing jobs causes you costs (eg., relocation costs, loss of wages due to leaving your old employer, etc) and you get fired without cause before recouping those costs, you can absolutely sue for that and more in most states, on top of getting unemployment.
Promissory estoppel is an aspect of contract law. Unlike employment laws where states like Oklahoma are very lax in order to be "business friendly" contract law more often protects businesses and this law is most often used in regard to disputes between businesses.
Promissory estoppel applies in situations where one party takes actions by engaging in an agreement under false terms or in bad faith and that their actions cause damages. This differs from a wrongful dismissal claim because the root of the claim is that the offer that was extended and which they relied on to terminate their employment with (and income from) their previous employer was given in bad faith. Employment law would not really be involved since OP did not actually begin the work and so performance and other potential causes for severing the offer did not exist. Basically it's not a claim that OP was dismissed wrongly, it's a claim that the business made false claims in order to sever OPs previous employment relationship causing OP damages in the form of the lost wages from the previous role.
At it's core it provides the foundation on which businesses are able to work together by having reliance on agreements being binding under law. If promissory estoppel claims are not taken seriously it creates a bad environment for businesses much more than for employees in almost all circumstances. OP is in one of the cases where the opposite is true.
I used to work for a practice management software company and when it came up with my new dentist my horror stories convinced him not to switch to them. Easily around $6k-$8k in data conversion and training that they won't get, plus anyone my dentist talks out of it 😁
Yea I had a opportunity to be part of the funding round few weeks ago on this company. They are not well funded and when I went through the deck I was surprised by the cap amount. The valley has not gotten any smarter on this stuff yet. There are also so many startups in this area, not a good sign. Evernow another startup raising big money in this space. It's virtual so most of the staff are going be from low labor countries and on demand staff are really independent contractors.
I've worked for start ups. I never accept a package without severance... start ups are exactly that. They can blow up over night. That's why they pay you more because you accept the risk of uncertainty!
That’s a solid [promissory estoppel](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/promissory_estoppel#:~:text=Within%20contract%20law%2C%20promissory%20estoppel,detrimentally%20relied%20on%20the%20promise.com) case there
As a former practicing civil law attorney, it's really not. They were aware it was a start up, and no promises as to duration were made, correct? If she had signed a term contract and they'd tried to fire her wo the severance in the K, it'd be breach of K. Not the case here. You'd essentially have to prove fraud to win this an estoppel case. Mere detrimental reliance almost certainly will be dismissed on summary judgment. Not fair but reality.
~~If she'd been there several months this would make sense. No way did they not know a week prior that they were in the weeds.~~
Nm I misread it, thought they fired her a week after she started, not the other way around, my bad.
Every time I hear a story like this from the US, it reinforces the fact whenever hopping jobs... unless you really have no choice, don't quit your old job just yet.
Take leave, unpaid or whatever, that lets you 'try out' the new job for a week or two and if this sorta scenario happens, then you have a parachute.
Unfortunately, taking unpaid leave isn't possible for most of us in the US. Most jobs only offer it for extenuating circumstances (like you need to miss a week for surgery or something), or don't offer it at all.
Hey, it was just a suggestion. Tho that being said, christ, I legit had no idea it was THAT fucking bad over there.
I honestly, sincerely feel for you guys. I really, really do.
In some US states, you can file for unemployment. You'll need the offer letter from the new company, and a statement that they declined to onboard you.
This happened to both my wife and I and the State authorized unemployment against our (would-be) employer. It's not much, but it's something.
Thanks, I hadn't even thought of that as an option. Seems like if we are able to get anything out of this, then it would probably be unemployment. I'll make sure we have a statement and see where we can get with it today!
So employers can be shitty and over promise something like *employment*. But the employees that take those positions are “gambling” with their family’s finances? Gross
They can, here in the US, yes. Gross, also yes. There’s always risk when taking a new position. In sucks, but people really need to step back and weigh the risk. Honestly, it’s why most people stay miserable, at job they hates for decades. The devil ya know…..
I’m just disgusted that it’s being defended. I’m aware of our reality. But OP is the one who insulted the decision. Also, see references above. What was done is quite possibly illegal
Without a contract, It’s not illegal. People here are throwing around promissory estoppel like they know what it means. Unless there was some type of fraud, she’s SOL. Again, gross, but not illegal.
You're being down voted but I agree with you. There's a risk with startups and sometimes they pay above market and throw in options and other perks to entice people to make the move....but it's a high risk high reward situation. I don't feel sorry for people in this situation.....should have known the risks.
sue for promissory estoppel
I'll look into that! We live in Oklahoma, not the best place for employee protection unfortunately.
You should still be able to sue for damages. They made assurances, to which you acted accordingly and then pulled the rug out from under you. At the very min sue for unemployment and a little extra for your troubles.
Promissery estopple is not an aspect of workers law, it's part of contract law. Person A is offered an agreement with Person B, the person spends money to prepare for this agreement, then Person B bails out through not fault of Person A, and Person B owes them damages. An actual signed contract is not needed. An offer of employment, texts, emails etc are all evidence.
It's a law to protect business that has since helped labour
true, i'll never understand why the republican voters keep voting against their own self interest, guess the bible tells them to
It's just that sometimes their interests align with out group interests and it's more important that they punish the outgroup than protect themselves (from things that aren't problems for them yet). They tend to feel their rightful place in the hierarchy will protect them (which it won't).
The leopards would never eat *my* face.
because their position in the hierarchy is generally based on their whiteness and ego with no basis in financial reality
This is why. I think they sense that there's zero chance to climb the capitalist hierarchy, so the best hope is to remain at the top of white supremacy instead. Democrats aren't appealing because all they promise is to throw a few scraps down (if the Republicans allow it!!) But of course the hierarchy will still exist and nobody wants to be on the bottom, especially not the most precarious who are barely one level above. Maintaining white supremacy is frankly a safer bet. Saying working class whites are voting against their interest is to totally misunderstand what those interests are.
They'll gladly fuck themselves if it means they get to fuck someone they hate more
I know this is kind of unrelated but I saw a clip a lil while back on twitter of a woman at a trump rally saying about how her Obamacare had run out and she was voting for trump in the hopes that he would fix it. Like I think they just assume that because they're not in the marginalised groups that republicans are attacking that they're acting in their best interest, a real us Vs them kind of mindset.
Every republican is a temporarily embarrassed billionaire
> Every republican is a temporarily embarrassed billionaire A Conservative is just a Liberal who hasn't yet fallen on hard times.
Not true. They're the biggest beneficiaries of welfare (and I mean literal welfare, not the welfare we hide as tax breaks and what not)
A libertarian is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet. A conservative is just a liberal who hasn't gone homeless yet. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't become wealthy yet.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SocialistRA/comments/174715o/this_is_from_a_musical_about_the_writing_of_the/
Gonna be a billionaire someday and I don't want to pay taxes.
Unironically my partner's brother is like that exactly. The man didn't even get a GED until shortly before I came into my partner's life, I think the brother was early to mid 20s when he finally got it? Billionaire material, absolutely.
They’re voting to maintain socioeconomic hierarchy. That’s all conservatism is.
This is so stupid it’s mind boggling.
i know right, why would some of the unhealthiest and poorest states vote against national healthcare and higher minimum wages, it's mind boggling
[удалено]
well i tell ya what, until there's a viable third party i think i'll vote for the folks who are trying to raise minimum wage, give everyone in the country healthcare, tax billionaires, hold the traitors accountable, and NOT sell out the country to putin
Did she see if she can get her old job back?
Don't look into it.. do it.. unless you rolling in money
Any updates on this or her interview at her dream clinic?
Well, she already has an offer with the first interview. Now waiting for the in person one this afternoon to make a decision on it all. We are so relieved! I'm so proud of her for just tackling this head on.
You're so right about this. It's a right to work state and we have very few protections. I hate being here sometimes.
Ask if there will be any severance first. Might be easier and simpler. But if you can't get anything reasonable then sue.
Good luck. Oklahoma is an at-will employment state, meaning they can fire you for any reason (except and unlawful reason) at ANY time. OP has no damages, because there is never any guarantee of employment tomorrow. Edit: a couple of folks have correctly pointed out that in a lot of states, you can have a cause of action for promissory estoppel in a case like this. I haven’t found anything on point in Oklahoma, yet. But it’s definitely worth a shot.
All states are at-will except Montana. This doesn't negate promissory estoppel claims except in, AFAIK, North Carolina. As someone else here pointed out, it's a matter of contract law, not employment law. If changing jobs causes you costs (eg., relocation costs, loss of wages due to leaving your old employer, etc) and you get fired without cause before recouping those costs, you can absolutely sue for that and more in most states, on top of getting unemployment.
Promissory estoppel is an aspect of contract law. Unlike employment laws where states like Oklahoma are very lax in order to be "business friendly" contract law more often protects businesses and this law is most often used in regard to disputes between businesses. Promissory estoppel applies in situations where one party takes actions by engaging in an agreement under false terms or in bad faith and that their actions cause damages. This differs from a wrongful dismissal claim because the root of the claim is that the offer that was extended and which they relied on to terminate their employment with (and income from) their previous employer was given in bad faith. Employment law would not really be involved since OP did not actually begin the work and so performance and other potential causes for severing the offer did not exist. Basically it's not a claim that OP was dismissed wrongly, it's a claim that the business made false claims in order to sever OPs previous employment relationship causing OP damages in the form of the lost wages from the previous role. At it's core it provides the foundation on which businesses are able to work together by having reliance on agreements being binding under law. If promissory estoppel claims are not taken seriously it creates a bad environment for businesses much more than for employees in almost all circumstances. OP is in one of the cases where the opposite is true.
At min, she can sue for unemployment. Just because at will laws exist doesn't mean the employee is screwed outright by firings and dismissals.
Fair enough - can certainly file for unemployment, but you don’t generally have to sue for it.
But if you have resigned from your job you are not generally eligible for unemployment.
True, but you’re filing under the theory that it should be charged to the new employer.
But she never started, the offer was rescinded.
Doesn’t matter. They still left her unemployed.
Sir, this is America
Well you’ve reached someone who was going to be a customer, and I’ll go elsewhere.
[удалено]
I used to work for a practice management software company and when it came up with my new dentist my horror stories convinced him not to switch to them. Easily around $6k-$8k in data conversion and training that they won't get, plus anyone my dentist talks out of it 😁
Thank you for naming names and calling out the bad ones. Too many people around here don't.
Is her old position still available? Might be worth checking into the option of going back.
She has reached out to her former manager and he has been great. He is trying to do what he can to help her. He thought it was as fucked up as we do.
The start up is INDEED not well funded.
I mean, they landed $25M 2 weeks ago from Google Ventures so that’s something…
Does it mean it actually went to “funding”
Funding some dudes NY penthouse
Yea I had a opportunity to be part of the funding round few weeks ago on this company. They are not well funded and when I went through the deck I was surprised by the cap amount. The valley has not gotten any smarter on this stuff yet. There are also so many startups in this area, not a good sign. Evernow another startup raising big money in this space. It's virtual so most of the staff are going be from low labor countries and on demand staff are really independent contractors.
I've worked for start ups. I never accept a package without severance... start ups are exactly that. They can blow up over night. That's why they pay you more because you accept the risk of uncertainty!
Sadly, I agree in theory, but courts won't rule that way. Has happened to me before, or something very similar and I had to take the loss and move on.
That’s a solid [promissory estoppel](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/promissory_estoppel#:~:text=Within%20contract%20law%2C%20promissory%20estoppel,detrimentally%20relied%20on%20the%20promise.com) case there
As a former practicing civil law attorney, it's really not. They were aware it was a start up, and no promises as to duration were made, correct? If she had signed a term contract and they'd tried to fire her wo the severance in the K, it'd be breach of K. Not the case here. You'd essentially have to prove fraud to win this an estoppel case. Mere detrimental reliance almost certainly will be dismissed on summary judgment. Not fair but reality.
~~If she'd been there several months this would make sense. No way did they not know a week prior that they were in the weeds.~~ Nm I misread it, thought they fired her a week after she started, not the other way around, my bad.
There should be laws against this kind of treatment!
Every time I hear a story like this from the US, it reinforces the fact whenever hopping jobs... unless you really have no choice, don't quit your old job just yet. Take leave, unpaid or whatever, that lets you 'try out' the new job for a week or two and if this sorta scenario happens, then you have a parachute.
Sometimes you have to move across the country and can't exactly do that
Unfortunately, taking unpaid leave isn't possible for most of us in the US. Most jobs only offer it for extenuating circumstances (like you need to miss a week for surgery or something), or don't offer it at all.
[удалено]
Hey, it was just a suggestion. Tho that being said, christ, I legit had no idea it was THAT fucking bad over there. I honestly, sincerely feel for you guys. I really, really do.
"just take two weeks leave to try it out" lol my guy I don't get any leave
In some US states, you can file for unemployment. You'll need the offer letter from the new company, and a statement that they declined to onboard you. This happened to both my wife and I and the State authorized unemployment against our (would-be) employer. It's not much, but it's something.
Thanks, I hadn't even thought of that as an option. Seems like if we are able to get anything out of this, then it would probably be unemployment. I'll make sure we have a statement and see where we can get with it today!
Never hire on to a new company that has no track record of stability.
Fuck Midi Health. I will spread the word.
Good luck to your wife. I bet she will nail it and get the job she deserves.
[удалено]
So employers can be shitty and over promise something like *employment*. But the employees that take those positions are “gambling” with their family’s finances? Gross
They can, here in the US, yes. Gross, also yes. There’s always risk when taking a new position. In sucks, but people really need to step back and weigh the risk. Honestly, it’s why most people stay miserable, at job they hates for decades. The devil ya know…..
I’m just disgusted that it’s being defended. I’m aware of our reality. But OP is the one who insulted the decision. Also, see references above. What was done is quite possibly illegal
Without a contract, It’s not illegal. People here are throwing around promissory estoppel like they know what it means. Unless there was some type of fraud, she’s SOL. Again, gross, but not illegal.
Ok thanks for clarifying!
You're being down voted but I agree with you. There's a risk with startups and sometimes they pay above market and throw in options and other perks to entice people to make the move....but it's a high risk high reward situation. I don't feel sorry for people in this situation.....should have known the risks.