Yes, You Can Be Fired For Being A Jerk

File this one under bad judgment.  In a decision to be released on March 22, the Connecticut Appellate Court found that being rude, insulting and obnoxious to your boss is sufficient misconduct to disqualify an employee from collecting unemployment when he gets fired.  In Joseph v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation, the employer discharged the employee, an accountant, "immediately after he sent his supervisor two highly insulting and demeaning e-mail messages questioning her accounting and supervisory abilities."  This wasn't the first time the employee had been insulting and demeaning; he previously had accused co-workers and a former supervisor of both incompetence and some unspecified "fraud."  Unemployment denied his claim for benefits, in part because his offensive e-mails were not spontaneous, during a heated discussion, but were a deliberate attempt to undermine his supervisor.  The Appellate Court agreed, finding that, because the e-mails insulted his supervisor personally and undermined her supervisory authority, his actions rose to the level of willful misconduct in the course of employment.

You would think it's kind of obvious, that being an obnoxious jerk towards your boss is a good way to get yourself fired.  Could the employer have done something short of firing him?  Of course they could.  But the important point is that they were not required to do so.  So remember, my grandmother's advice (if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all) applies with the force of law in the workplace.

CT Appellate Court Refuses To Bind Employer To Progressive Discipline Policy

In a blow to employee rights, the Connecticut Appellate Court refused to require an employer to live up to its progressive discipline policy.  In the case of Brule v. Nerac, Inc., the Court found that the employer was not bound by the progressive discipline policy set forth in its management training course, because the language was too vague to give rise to a contractual obligation.

The employer provided a management training course, which included training materials directing managers to provide "progressive discipline, open communication and an opportunity for improvement" prior to terminating their subordinates’ employment.  The employees, who were terminated without following progressive discipline, claimed that this training course formed contractually binding obligations not to terminate them without first following progressive discipline.  The Court decided against the employees, holding that the training materials merely set forth "a series of suggested principles that the managers should observe. . . ." (emphasis in original).

This decision once again shows that, for most workers, progressive discipline policies are worthless, because the employer can toss them out the window at any time.  I can't tell you how many times I've had people call me to complain that they were fired without following a progressive discipline policy, and I've had to tell them that I couldn't help them.  When your employer has you sign off on the employee handbook with a big disclaimer that says you are an employee at-will, that means the employer is not bound by any of the policies in the handbook.