Managers now just brazenly lie on the check ins and reviews so employees can be illegally fired for cause. Will Wells Fargo now just commit perjury in court when they are sued like they did on the fake accounts? Wells Fargo is the most corrupt company.
17 replies (most recent on top)
@nv Lisa Cook has a law - not a contract - and a Supreme Court opinion that carves out the Federal Reserve as quasi private. College football coaches have a contract - but the restricted compensation acceptance is also a contract. The point that severance and restricted compensation are on separate but related legal footings is astute.
@f8 displacements are not "for cause"
You may (or may not) be given an IM, but this is only used to identify the bottom 15% to cut.
The point of severance and release is so you don't sue. If they fire you for cause and try to claw back comp, then you really did something wrong, something that makes it worth risking a lawsuit. This is exceedingly rare, as evidenced by the dearth of news stories about it despite 100k layoffs.
@h7+1m32ykde2 Lisa Cook has a written contract (written and signed by agents and lawyers) and the wherewithal to spend $$$ on lawyers. Not a good example. You (we) don't have a formal contract.
@f8 The issue is not wrongful dismissal as much as it is a hypothetical cause to get severance and restricted compensation if Wells Fargo attempts to claw that back upon dishonest performance reviews. If Tim Sloan can file a lawsuit - so can anyone jammed up like this.
@f8 the fact that for cause is literally a fact question and does not get to be determined by one party alone (think Lisa Cook or the LSU coach fired last year)
@eg the restricted compensation says if you are terminated for cause or you quit - your restricted comp is forfeited. So where's your legal footing for wrongful dismissal in that?
@e3 You clearly have not read the annual agreements you must sign every year for restricted compensation. It is possible severance may be on a somewhat different legal footing than restricted compensation - but I think for those employees with restricted compensation - if the company has not abolished severance- the treatment of for cause or not for cause should be the same for severance and restricted compensation. I also understand most on this board may not have restricted compensation.
@ae no that is not correct. Severance and vesting of restricted stock are not entitlement nor a legal or regulatory right.
You only have a viable case for wrongful dismissal if you can prove discrimination of a protected class OR retaliation for whistle-blowing.
@ay it's not about at -will laws. By policy (not by law), you have some degree of entitlement to severance if your position is eliminated. Wells leadership is kind of over a barrel though, they got roasted and their stock price took a hit when they reported how much they were paying in severance, but if Wells changes their written severance policy they will absolutely sla-ghter their ability to recruit from other banks. So they're trying to have it both ways, nominally keeping the severance policy on the books, while manufacturing reasons to fire people for cause to avoid paying.
@ay You’re missing the point - the issue is firing for cause and clawing back the severance and the restricted compensation vs. a layoff.
Good, then they can stop making up fake excuses and lying to us.
At-will employment: they don't actually need a reason to dismiss you, as long as its not discrimination.
aa - not when it's illegal retaliation in the playbook
@aa Not when it’s taking your severance and restricted compensation away. There is a cause
Do we need regime change?
The only thing you can sue about for wrongful dismissal is if you can show a protected class was treated differentially. ‘
There’s no such thing in the eyes of the law or regulators as a a”fake performance review”
Yes
The managers doing the fake reviews most likely will be laid off before any regulatory actors catch up to them