Cathie's Corner Blog

(Published November 16, 2009)

I was asked an interesting question recently, a twist on a frequently asked question. While it is not unusual for an employee to ask if an employer can give a negative reference, this employee wanted to know what to do if the employer refused to confirm employment at all. Unfortunately, there wasn't much I could tell her. With limited exceptions, employers are not required to provide references, or even to confirm employment. If her employer opted not to do so, I can't think of any law that will force the issue.

What I am having a hard time imagining, though, is why an employer would refuse to confirm at least dates of employment.  While I stand firmly on the side of providing accurate, truthful information about an employee's performance in most cases, I can understand why an employer would want to limit the information they provide, particularly in the case of a marginal or poor performer. But to not even verify that the employee worked there? What possible reason will there be for that?

I can only assume that the employer has so completely bought into the idea that they can be sued for providing "bad references" that they are refusing to give any information at all. But that's shortsighted at best. I don't think the employer really thought this through if they are afraid that confirming dates of employment will get them into legal trouble.

The employee may have some recourse if she can show that the employer customarily provides references for other employees. Also, while the employee did not indicate to me whether this is the case or not, if this is happening in retaliation for her having filed a wage or discrimination complaint, the employee could file suit and be awarded damages.

Certainly there are valid reasons to limit the amount of information that is given out.  While I've already said that in most cases I believe employers should provide accurate information on employees, I do not deny that there are circumstances when limiting it to dates of employment and job title, etc., can be the wisest thing. But refusal to even confirm that the employee worked there seems to be just petty.

If you have a valid reason to believe that there might be some legal difficulties with providing information (for example, if your HR department does not know the employee personally but the manager cannot be relied upon to keep within legal boundaries of what should or should not be said), then by all means, stick to limits.  Dates of employment, salary, and job title can all be safely verified with no fear of any sort of legal issues, as long as the information provided is factual. But to refuse to even acknowledge the employment of an employee is just wrong, in my opinion. There's no justification for that.

Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.

(Published October 26, 2009)

The economy must be getting better, in my opinion.  The number of questions I'm hearing from people who have successfully found new jobs is increasing.  But the question that comes up most often is one that disturbs me somewhat.

I don't know if it's paranoia or if the questioners have reason to ask, but I'm getting numerous questions along this line: "If I give my notice and I'm immediately walked out the door, does my employer have to pay me for my notice period?"

The answer, of course, is no; there is no such requirement outside of a legally binding contract or collective bargaining agreement.  But it worries me that the question arises so often.  I have never worked for a company that would not pay a resigning employee if it indeed found it necessary to release the employee early.

It's not that I don't understand why an employer might not allow an employee to work out their notice.  I completely understand that in some cases, it's necessary.  When your top salesperson gives notice, you don't want to wonder whether they're promoting your product or that of their new employer.  Or if it's a problem employee, you just want them out as quickly as possible before they can cause any more trouble than they already have.  I've accepted notice early when it was warranted, but I've always paid the employee for the time.

There are several reasons for that.  One, it's just plain good manners.  If they had the courtesy to offer you notice, and you're unable or unwilling to allow them to work out the time, it's rude not to provide them with the pay they would have gotten if they did.  Then there's the question of unemployment.  In many states, if you do not accept notice that is offered and do not pay it out, part or all of the time can qualify the employee to receive unemployment benefits.  Is it really worth a potential increase in your rates to save a few days' pay?  Even in these tight times?

Hopefully, cases where an employee gives notice but is released immediately and without pay are the exception rather than the rule.  You don't really want to get a reputation for early, unpaid releases when an employee gives notice; otherwise, you'll soon find that none of your employees give notice at all.  It's all very well for you to decide that you don't need the employee in question to hand off his work to someone else and that he can leave immediately, but it's another thing to have all your employees quitting without notice, leaving you with no idea what their passwords are or the status of the Johnson account.  You want to be the one to make the decision; you don't want it taken out of your hands.

So consider the long term when your employees give notice — there's more to think about than just the immediate pay period!

Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.