Support NeoGAF

[darkazcura]

Hey GAF, this is my first thread...my mom has been having a rough time at work the last couple years, but we never really expected for it to come to this until recently. I'm about to go home with my brother so we can stay with her for a bit, but I wanted to post this thread first.

Unfortunately I can not remember every single detail, but I'm pretty shocked/angry, and I'd like to use this thread as a way to vent a bit.

About sometime last year, my mom became a float bank teller for her bank (my mom had been working for the same bank for 20+ years..switched branches only once in the same city). She pretty much travels to where they need her on a biweekly or monthly basis. About that same time, my mom was given a warning for asking if someone needs to sign off on a check under $1000. It was a minor slip up in my mind, but it was policy so I don't have too much of an issue understanding that one.

Fast forward a year later in around January or February, my mom did the same thing, even though the manager at the bank told her to make the person sign off on the check. My mom was confused, though, because of last year's situation so she panicked a bit and called corporate headquarters for help. She ended up getting a warning because you are supposedly not allowed to call corporate for this kind of question.

About a month later my mom confided in a close friend she had at the bank from another branch she previously worked at who was a manager (different from the one I previously mentioned). Apparently that manager told my mom's regional manager that my mom came and talked to him. My mom at that point got a final written warning because during the meeting of the last warning in February her regional manager told her not to talk to anyone about her situation. Reading that warning in February, though, it was never explicitly written that my mom couldn't talk to someone. It was all verbal, and this is where I started feeling a little bit shaky. I think it is ridiculous that she can't confide or talk to a manager about her situation.

Anywho now fast forward to last week..my mom visited a bank she worked at because a friend of my mom's was getting married soon and wanted to congratulate her and say hi..while my mom was there, the assistant manager was asking my mom about her situation at work, but my mom kept saying "no, I don't want to talk about it" because of her final warning. According to my mom the assistant manager asked a couple more times, and my mom felt pressured to say something. A week later my mom was fired by her regional manager for this.

My mom's not perfect or anything, but she has been a great teller at this bank for years. Most people enjoy working with her, and she is very active in the community. The president of the bank even donated $250 to her specifically last week at the cancer walk. I understand some of the things she did wrong (policy with the $1000 check), but the last two warnings seem ridiculous to me. I'm in the process of calling an employment lawyer and asking some questions, but I'd like to hear from someone on GAF who may be a lawyer because I can be impatient..I wanted to vent a bit too, and I'm a little stressed.

Sorry if the story is a bit confusing. I know it is because of how many managers are involved. Being a float teller complicates the hierarchy a bit honestly. My mom and I live in Massachusetts by the way.

 

[Brakke]

Does she even live in a state where Wrongful Termination is a thing?

 

[lewisgone]

What did your mom tell the assistant manager? That she was on her final warning? I can't understand what the assistant manager could have said to her boss to make them fire her. As far as I can tell from your story she didn't do anything bad once she was on her final warning?

So yeah, that sounds wrongful to me. Good luck to you and your mom.

 

[Damaniel]

I don't know how strong labor protections are in MA, but in many states, as long as you're not being fired due to membership in a protected class, you can be let go for nearly any reason.

That being said, what kind of company fires employees for asking a clarifying question about doing their job? If she hadn't asked and done the wrong thing, I suspect she would have been fired for that, too.

 

[Mononoke]

Sounds to me, like another case of common sense/decency being thrown out the window for strict regulation. Did she make mistakes with regards to the policy? Sure. But I feel like they put her in situations where she was bound to slip up again. And for what? She's been working 20 years with them (been a great employee), but because she messed up they fire her?

Bleh.

 

[darkazcura]

What did your mom tell the assistant manager? That she was on her final warning? I can't understand what the assistant manager could have said to her boss to make them fire her. As far as I can tell from your story she didn't do anything bad once she was on her final warning?

So yeah, that sounds wrongful to me. Good luck to you and your mom.

I'm not exactly sure. I'm going home right now to be with my mom and probably won't be able to respond to a lot in this thread, but I'm hopeful to hear more information from my mom when I get home. She was balling her eyes out and has a lot of difficulty explaining herself when she is like that.

Hopefully I hear more information soon.

 

[Zaphod]

I the moral sense, yes she was probably terminated wrongfully. Fortunately we all have the 'right to work' in most states, so she can be fired for any reason or none at all.

 

[Northeastmonk]

Call the upper heads, someone who doesn't deal with the issue face to face. It sounds worse than HIPAA. At least with HIPAA you're allowed to call an ethics committee or the state. Not being able to talk about your problem with someone is BS. You should always have someone you can talk to. You're an employee, not a secret service team.

 

[Angry Grimace]

This is not a wrongful termination. A wrongful termination is one that is based on a forbidden characteristic, like race, age, sex, national origin. The fact that its unfair or may even violate the bank's policies don't convert it into a wrongful termination. They might be evidence that the true motive was unlawful if she had a claim that it was based on a forbidden characteristic, but not a wrongful termination in and of itself.

 

[sk3]

If you are in the US, she could be fired at any time for any (aka none) reason. A few rare exceptions/states notwithstanding.

They sound like anal retentive assholes at that bank, but then again that is the kind of behavior I expect from all of my dealings with bank branches.

 

[darkazcura]

This is not a wrongful termination. A wrongful termination is one that is based on a forbidden characteristic, like race, age, sex, national origin. The fact that its unfair or may even violate the bank's policies don't convert it into a wrongful termination. They might be evidence that the true motive was unlawful if she had a claim that it was based on a forbidden characteristic, but not a wrongful termination in and of itself.

So would you suggest letting this go and help my mom find new employment? Should I even bother contacting a lawyer?

 

[Patryn]

I'm sorry, but it sounds like they were looking for a reason to get rid of her. Unfortunately, they apparently do a have a paper trail of giving her warnings, so it's not an unlawful termination.

She should probably still file for unemployment and see if they challenge it.

 

[BurnOutBrighter]

She got a warning because she asked a question about policy? That sounds awfully harsh, am I missing something about banks here?

I work for a government department and have to ask about policy all the time, the damn things change so often.

 

[OmegaFax]

If you are in the US, she could be fired at any time for any (aka none) reason. A few rare exceptions/states notwithstanding.

They sound like anal retentive assholes at that bank, but then again that is the kind of behavior I expect from all of my dealings with bank branches.

I'm no lawyer ... but this isn't true. It isn't a blanket federal law and more of a state by state thing. There are states that forbid the ability to fire at will.

To me, and from what I read, it sounds like a form of entrapment. The management is telling her to do something that's explicitly against policy and using it as a reason to fire her.

 

[Angry Grimace]

So would you suggest letting this go and help my mom find new employment? Should I even bother contacting a lawyer?

I am an employment attorney in California and this is what I would tell someone who called me with the same situation.

However, I do suggest that you call an attorney who is willing to speak with you over the phone to go over it (which won't be all of them). What I mean is, I don't think you should spend money for a consultation - I think you should see if you can find someone who will just tell you about your mother's situation as applied to MA law over the phone.

That said, while I am not an expert on MA law, the laws of the various states are rarely more stringent than in California.

 

[Vyroxis]

She was warned not to talk to others at the bank about it, she did so anyways. Sadly that's justification for her getting canned even of it was under pressure, especially if they have written documentation about it.

Sounds like she made an honest mistake, then compounded it with a couple more later on. Sucks, but thems the breaks sometimes.

 

[Mononoke]

She was warned not to talk to others at the bank about it, she did so anyways. Sadly that's justification for her getting canned even of it was under pressure, especially if they have written documentation about it.

Sounds like she made an honest mistake, then compounded it with a couple more later on. Sucks, but thems the breaks sometimes.

Pretty much. But I just hate how when you are in a bureaucratic work place, people lose their common sense about things. Like really? You are really going to fire someone over that. Especially when you consider the fact that she did great work for them for 20 years. Logically, the positives far outweigh the negatives. So even if you want to be cold/calculated about this, it makes less sense to just let her go.

I think my issue more than anything though, is that it feels like the put her in a situation to fail.

 

[melonrabbit]

She got a warning because she asked a question about policy? That sounds awfully harsh, am I missing something about banks here?

Yeah. I'm not understanding the reasoning behind the initial warning. Why wasn't she allowed to clarify about a certain policy, OP?

 

[Angry Grimace]

I'm no lawyer ... but this isn't true. It isn't a blanket federal law and more of a state by state thing. There are states that forbid the ability to fire at will.

To me, and from what I read, it sounds like a form of entrapment. The management is telling her to do something that's explicitly against policy and using it as a reason to fire her.

It is a state-by-state issue, but all of them are for all intents and purposes at-will states except for Montana. There are various exceptions to the rule, but they mostly rely on public policy and/or implied contract breaches.

Discrimination is illegal everywhere under Title VII at the very least.

 

[darkazcura]

Yeah. I'm not understanding the reasoning behind the initial warning. Why wasn't she allowed to clarify about a certain policy, OP?

Well, that's the detail I don't completely understand no matter how much my mom tries to explain it to me. I don't work at a bank either so I was pretty dumbfounded by it also.

 

[Dimefan3]

What I got out of that was your Mom was fired for asking a question about a banks policy in order to do her job properly, which is really not at all unreasonable. And the regional manager 'friend' doesn't sound much like one if they pull that kind of crap.

Sue the bloody bejesus out of them.

 

[Super Rookie]

If you are in the US, she could be fired at any time for any (aka none) reason. A few rare exceptions/states notwithstanding.

They sound like anal retentive assholes at that bank, but then again that is the kind of behavior I expect from all of my dealings with bank branches.

Does this work the other way round too? As in can you can quit without giving a weeks/months notice?

 

[Radec]

Damn, 20 years.

Does she get a severance pay or something?

 

[Zoe]

Sue the bloody bejesus out of them.

On what grounds?

Does this work the other way round too? As in can you can quit without giving a weeks/months notice?

Of course. Unless there's a contract in place, you can always walk away.

The notice is given so you don't burn bridges.

 

[Yaboosh]

Does this work the other way round too? As in can you can quit without giving a weeks/months notice?

Of course.

 

[Malreyn]

I don't know how strong labor protections are in MA, but in many states, as long as you're not being fired due to membership in a protected class, you can be let go for nearly any reason.

That being said, what kind of company fires employees for asking a clarifying question about doing their job? If she hadn't asked and done the wrong thing, I suspect she would have been fired for that, too.

Its an "Employee at will" state.....which means that they could fire her for any reason....however the fact that they continually gave her warnings and final written warnings, the termination is about as solid as it can be in the courts eyes, imo

 

[revolverjgw]

Is this your mom?

 

[Yaboosh]

Its an "Employee at will" state.....which means that they could fire her for any reason....however the fact that they continually gave her warnings and final written warnings, the termination is about as solid as it can be in the courts eyes, imo

Well, not any reason. Most reasons, but the are a handful of things you can't be fired for like sex, race, religion etc.

 

[riotous]

Sounds like she repeatedly did the same thing despite multiple write ups and warnings.

I really doubt she has any sort of wrongful termination case here.

 

[hokahey]

At Will allows the employee to be fired for "At Will". If a different termination reason is given (other than "your employment has been terminated at will") then you can still sue for wrongful termination. I was an HR manager at a previous job in an At Will state. If I'm wrong, my company was mistaken on how the law worked, which I doubt.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Shitty situation but there's really nothing legally wrong here. It's best to move on.

 

[Nephtis]

The president of the bank even donated $250 to her specifically last week at the cancer walk. I understand some of the things she did wrong (policy with the $1000 check), but the last two warnings seem ridiculous to me.

Does the president of the bank remember her? Does she have a good standing with him/her, and does he know of her working ethic?

I don't think you've a legal leg to stand on, but it may be worth to try and reach out to him/her and present your mom's situation. If nothing else, he/she may write a letter of recommendation upon request, which would go a long way in finding new employment.

It's a super long stretch though, but what does she have to lose?

 

[Saroyan]

Well this reinforces my opinion that banks are horrible and that I should continue to only use credit unions.

 

[Mononoke]

As crazy as this sounds, maybe writing a letter to the president explaining her circumstances, could help? I know that sounds stupid. But you would be surprised at how far a written letter can get you. Not enough people do it today, so when someone in that position gets a letter, it can have an impact. If she explains she was a faithful worker for 20 + years, and really depends on the job. And just explain that while she knows she messed up, she feels the last two times were unfair (because she was put in a pressured situation).

The worst case scenario is she writes the letter, and never gets a reply. So why not. Again, I know this sounds really silly/idealistic. But I've actually had success with this in the past with companies/corporations.

EDIT: I would only suggest doing this, if you determine you don't have grounds to stand on (ie. if your state doesn't have protections, or if you consult a lawyer and they say she can't do anything about her termination). I wouldn't write a letter admitting mistakes prior to determining this.

 

[fudgey_lumpkins]

Honestly, it sounds like they pushed her out. Those "warnings" were just to make it seem like they had a reason to let her go. Why else would the assistant manger keep trying to make her talk despite knowing that you mother did not want to and then tell on her for finally saying something only because she felt pressured to do so?

 

[akira28]

Is this your mom?

yes.

OP, it sounds like someone wanted her gone, sad to say. Private employers don't respect experience or years of service as much anymore. Especially when they think about how much things have changed over the years. They look for excuses so they can replace staff with a "better" model. Your mom needs to look into getting another job, maybe taking some time off and going to community college for a couple semesters to try and steer into another career direction. She might even be happier with what she comes up with after some time off.

She can look into consulting with a lawyer, 50 dollars or maybe even less than that. If you're in an at will termination state, its easier to fire people, especially with all the write-ups. Even though in context it seems like they were being unfair, and maybe a judge might see it that way too, but if all they look at is the numbers, the company can present them in any way they want, with the bottom line being that they felt they had enough reason to terminate.

 

[Takuan]

This sounds ridiculous to the point that I question your mother's recounting of the events.

 

[darkazcura]

This sounds ridiculous to the point that I question your mother's recounting of the events.

To be honest my mom has difficulty explaining herself, but she's not a liar. I've questioned her about some of the stuff, but in the end, I give her the benefit of the doubt because she had been working there for 20 years (25 maybe even) with no issues. All of these issues started when this new regional manager came on board and she switched to float teller.

I've talked to actual coworkers (not managers) who do not understand why my mom is treated the way she is/was the last year or two.

 

[Lambtron]

This sounds ridiculous to the point that I question your mother's recounting of the events.

It sounds to me like someone being managed out the door.

 

[cwmartin]

To be honest my mom has difficulty explaining herself, but she's not a liar. I've questioned her about some of the stuff, but in the end, I give her the benefit of the doubt because she had been working there for 20 years (25 maybe even) with no issues. All of these issues started when this new regional manager came on board and she switched to float teller.

I've talked to actual coworkers (not managers) who do not understand why my mom is treated the way she is/was the last year or two.

As shitty as it is, which we all agree with, that doesn't make it wrongful.

 

[Takuan]

To be honest my mom has difficulty explaining herself, but she's not a liar. I've questioned her about some of the stuff, but in the end, I give her the benefit of the doubt because she has been working there for 20 years (25 maybe even) with no issues. All of these issues started when this new regional manager came on board and she switched to float teller.

As someone who has worked for a bank in the past, I promise you there's more to it than just those few flubs. Something is off if you've worked a teller position for 20 years and still don't know policy regarding something as basic as sign off requirements for a check over a certain amount. It's fine to ask for help as a newbie, but if you're a career bank teller, associates should be coming to you with questions, not the other way around.

The way I see it, your mother was dead weight they'd been trying to get rid of for ages. It makes absolutely no sense to write her up for such minor "offences", otherwise.

You're going to have a very difficult time of suing if you go that route. Banks are typically quite hesitant to fire full timers and have to build an iron clad case to do so.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

Well they seem like a bunch of despicable cunts to work for:

Most places actively encourage asking questions when unsure, surely common sense dictates that it's the exact thing to do!

 

[gogogow]

Can someone explain to me what this means? (English is not my native language.)

asking if someone needs to sign off on a check under $1000.

I googled it, but can't find anything at all.

 

[Takuan]

Can someone explain to me what this means? (English is not my native language.)



I googled it, but can't find anything at all.

Checks over a certain dollar amount need a senior staff member to give the go-ahead.

 

[darkazcura]

As someone who has worked for a bank in the the past, I promise it's more to it than just those few flubs. Something is off if you've worked a teller position for 20 years and still don't know policy regarding something as basic as sign off requirements for a check over a certain amount. It's fine to ask for help as a newbie, but if you're a career bank teller, associates should be coming to you with questions, not the other way around.

The way I see it, your mother was dead weight they'd been trying to get rid of for ages. It makes absolutely no sense to write her up for such minor "offences", otherwise.

You're going to have a very difficult time of suing if you go that route. Banks are typically quite hesitant to fire full timers and have to build an iron clad case to do so.

One detail I didn't mention is that my mom's bank was bought out a few years back (maybe 5?). Different policies. The old upper management didn't care about questions like the check one because they were less strict hence why that manager didn't even know how to answer the $1000 rule and my mom calling corporate. Feel like it's worse if a manager didn't even know. Seems odd for my mom to get a harsh warning for it while the manager walled free for being equally as incompetent regarding policy. My mom even has multiple teller achievement awards to back herself up so I doubt she was considered dead weight to the majority of coworkers. Maybe to management for some odd reason but not her coworkers.

Heck my mom was offered management positions several times before (until recently obviously) but never took them because she didn't want the extra stress especially after my father passed a few years back.

 

[Angry Grimace]

To be honest my mom has difficulty explaining herself, but she's not a liar. I've questioned her about some of the stuff, but in the end, I give her the benefit of the doubt because she had been working there for 20 years (25 maybe even) with no issues. All of these issues started when this new regional manager came on board and she switched to float teller.

I've talked to actual coworkers (not managers) who do not understand why my mom is treated the way she is/was the last year or two.

I mean, its possible its age discrimination, but I don't think you would convince a lawyer (at least not a scrupulous one) to take that case on unless you had a concrete reason to believe that.

 

[darkazcura]

Either way based on this thread, I feel like calling a lawyer to do my due diligence is a good idea. Seems like a good idea to help my mom out with finding a job in the mean time or possibly help her with getting into a community college it anything interests her. My girlfriend told me her aunt recently got a full time teller position had a different bank all together so my mom may look into that.

Thanks for the help/support so far guys.

 

[gogogow]

Checks over a certain dollar amount need a senior staff member to give the go-ahead.

I see. Thanks!

Pretty crazy to give someone a warning just because he or she was asking a question. Maybe it´s standard policy at banks, I don´t know, never worked in a bank.

 

[.Q.]

I work at a bank and it's really not complicated stuff. Banking regulations don't change that much that often, especially on the teller line (recent mortgage laws notwithstanding, that's the kind of thing a teller would refer to a loan officer anyway). And the policy about having someone sign off on a check over a certain amount sounds like a company (bank-specific) policy, not something federal. She should know the rules after doing the same job for 20+ years... I have to agree that she was probably "managed out" as a result of general long-term incompetence.

She likely qualifies for unemployment, though.

 

[GJS]

What kind of fucked up work place doesn't let you clarify procedures or policies. Kind of defeats the purpose of even having policies if you're not even allowed to discuss or question them and make sure you are still doing it right and nothing has been updated.