Related Posts
Bowl Leader
Pro
Bowl Leader
Additional Posts in Accounting
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
That was just a preview…
Sign Up to see all discussions
Sign Up to see all discussions
- Discover what it’s like to work at companies from real professionals
- Get candid advice from people in your field in a safe space
- Chat and network with other professionals in your field
Sign up in seconds to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
"" is an unusual email domain. If correct, please proceed to the next step
Messaging rates may apply
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Share
Embed this post
Copy and paste embed code on your site
Preview
Download the
Fishbowl app
Scan your QR code to download
Fishbowl app on your mobile
Sign up for free to view this conversation on Fishbowl
Sign up for free to continue using Fishbowl
Messaging rates may apply
Good luck proving it, unfortunately. Especially with Big Four’s army of lawyers
Chief
Interesting question... Personally based on my knowledge and I'm not a lawyer I would say no. Many states have "at-will" employment which means they can fire you at any point for any reason (as long as it's not illegal). With that being said, you can certainly file a wrongful termination lawsuit if you feel like your race played a role. For example, if you're a high performing black audit associate who was laid off for "performance issues" yet there are white employees on PIPs who didn't get laid off.
It's interesting to see but I'm sure the firms legal and HR have been working on this for a long time and hopefully are smart enough to ensure nothing they do could pose a risk to the firm such as a lawsuit.
Technically for race, gender, age if you’re over 60 (may be younger), religion, or some other protected class, you would have to file complaint with the EEOC if pursuing under federal law or the state’s version of that agency if under state law. You have to exhaust certain administrative remedies first before a suit can be filed in court.
It depends on the specifics, but it’s possible. With that said, the only reasons it would be worth bringing a case would be for doing something like discrimination or retaliation. At the end of the day you’re an at will employee and can be let go at any time for basically no reason. Practices within the firm have layoffs that are non-performance based and people are simply let go regardless of past performance of business conditions change.
As others said- the firm would be well defended so unless you had a real case and evidence it likely wouldn’t be worth your time.
They can separate employment for any reason if employment is at will but in that case the firm is better off not giving a reason for the separation. If they say it is performance based but there is nothing in performance file or reviews to support that then there is a case for wrongful termination.
Am I the only person who thinks this is ridiculous? I get it, being laid off/ fired is horrible, but a lawsuit because you're bitter about who stayed? Public is an incredibly small world, people will talk about you off the record and you'll never get hired again. Performance issues is not wrongful termination, and I promise you, they accumulated documentation even if it wasn't shared with you. They wouldn't be "scared" into coughing up anything, they would laugh at you, especially since most let go received a severance package which probably included a clause against this.
You don’t have a case if you’re hung up on performance. They have the right to let you go for no reason at all if they want to. Outside your firm the performance based separation will not be meaningful except in a minority of situations- it won’t come up on unemployment/background checks/etc.
That said, the firms prefer to document a performance based separation because it makes things more cut and dry and they have an internal policy that guides the process.
Feel free to talk to a lawyer about it if you think there is more I’m missing, but without some kind of law being broken (sexual harassment, retaliation, discrimination) you likely don’t have a case.
I think if you make it as a discrimination case, ie disability, racial minority, gender etc. wondering why our firm has been pushing for women in the workplace? Besides social movement for equality, the firm has spent the past decade defending its own discrimination class action. Although the court sided with the firm, but the case was appealed and seems never ending, and the cost and reputational damage is huge. https://sanfordheisler.com/case/kpmg-gender-discrimination-case/
Not only is employment at-will, you signed an indemnification clause when you accepted the position to begin with. And unfortunately, US labor laws are much more lax than our European counter parts. I genuinely don’t think it’s worth your time and could have the potential to black ball you.
the firm is disguising lay-offs as performance based separations. This prevents those separated from getting their unemployment benefits and makes it harder to find a new job when the prospective employer thinks you were fired for performance issues. Why would they want to hire someone with performance issues? The firm is taking employees who have been rated 'good' or a 3 under the 1-5 ratings with 5 the highest. Most people were evaluated as a 3, with some 4's and one or two people getting a 5. The firm is randomly selecting from the group of 3 ratings and letting some go but not all. This is why people are mad - it is arbitrary. If the firm needs to reduce workforce, call it what it is, a layoff. Not a performance based separation. It seems like if this prevents someone from obtaining unemployment benefits, there could be a lawsuit that would be successful, if only to get your unemployment.
Just replying to second TM1. Some of the firms have a variety of reasons they are not simply announcing a big layoff, but in practice are still essentially doing a big lay-off from an internal perspective. I feel like the business reasons have been discussed extensively on this app if you really care. The internal koolaid drinking around people being let go for normal performance reasons is insulting and plainly bullshit, but on some level harmless if you realize what it is.
Agree that no one will care why you were let go as soon as you are out the door. If you have a solid attitude the reality is every firm’s competitor would likely hire you if business picked up and they needed bodies. Knowing many folks further along in their career at each one of the B4 firms, it’s very common. Don’t get bogged down in the semantics around your performance or your peers that weren’t let go- you’re wasting time and energy. Just move on.
Yeah I think because it’s at will they don’t need cause but just wonder if there would be anything you could do for them wrongfully terminating you for performance issues as there seems to be people on PIPs that are still around...to PwC1’s point it may be difficult to prove, but also maybe the threat of a lawsuit would entice them to cough up some money rather than go to court? Food for thought for those that have been let go
at will employer and don't think for a second GCO wasn't involved in all of these
F
I think the only way will be a class action, assuming that a lawyer can generate enough interest
May be hard (but not impossible) to prove illegality of the separation. Lawyers take 40% so may not be with it.