Terminated due violation company policy

All states allow the possible employer to ask why the person was terminated.

The same with former employers, they can answer legitimate questions of why the person was terminated.

What can't happen is unfactual or unsubstantiated/alleged reasons or embellishment of factual reasons for termination.

The practice has been for a long time to avoid any possible reason to be entrapped into a lawsuit based on possible slander of a potential employee, but it seems that is just a practice and not a law or a rule.

 

Since he’s so nervous about facing up to errors, he probably asked her to post on trucker’s report.

His lying about the goof voids everything she said about him. Grown man so scared he lied. Embarrassing.

 

And people question why companies are starting to use camera's? This is a classic example it can serve to exonerate you if your telling the truth. We all make mistakes its better to man up about it and take responsibility than try and hide it.

 

Be more careful of how hard you hit a hit pole? She did say "slighty".

 

Narrow parameters there. I like one big lie, cover it all and easy to remember.

 

So... Keep it Simple Stup..?

 

That's true. When I 1st started trucking, not even a month in, had a bad wreck, my only one in 35 years, but told the boss exactly what happened, and I was driving( a different truck) the very next day.

 

yup , just keep repeating the lie then it magically becomes true……..

 

About 40 years ago, somebody wrote a book titled "L.I.A.R.", which stood for the "Lexicon of Intentionally Ambiguous References"; in other words, ways of hinting at how bad an employee had been, without saying it outright:

- To describe a candidate who is woefully inept: "I most enthusiastically recommend this candidate with no qualifications whatsoever."

- For the candidate who is not particularly industrious: "In my opinion, you will be very fortunate to get this person to work for you."

- For the candidate with lackluster credentials: "All in all, I cannot say enough good things about this candidate to recommend him too highly."

- To describe the ex-employee who had difficulty getting along with fellow workers: "I am pleased to say that this candidate is a former colleague of mine."

- And for the candidate who is so unproductive that the position would be better left unfilled: "I can assure you that no person would be better for the job."

Unfortunately, this book became so popular that, when a prospective candidate had one of these 'references' repeated verbatim, the guy recognized the source, and decided to sue his former employer for slander (and won). So today, unless your current employer is a loudmouth moron, all they will likely share are the dates which you worked, and your job title.

 

Been there, done that -

https://www.amazon.com/Lexicon-Intentionally-Ambiguous-Recommendations-L-I/dp/1402201397

I heard the story a couple of times, but not really, there have been several cases brought to the court and they have been tossed.

The problem is this when there is a complaint, the first thing is they have to be valid. You have to have proof that there is first intent to trash the employee to damage their prospects and second is to be recorded for evidence, no hear-say. I know one case (there have been a few like it in this state) where a former employee claimed to be trashed but then they recorded a "fake" call from a potential employer which was used as evidence. The former employee hired a person in another state, they came here and created a real problem for the person bringing the suit. We are a two-party or an all-party state. The case was decided in favor of the employer because there was no proof of it, and the employee who brought the complaint was now in some deep crap because they and their representative who made the call where they were to disclose the conversation was to be recorded. The former employer sued him, and the representative for damages and won.