Posts: 27,160
Threads: 2,805
Joined: May 2025
And don't think your employer will have your best interests.
I know someone who was just tricked into resigning this week rather than to be let go. They told her that they didn't want her employment history to show she was dismissed. So by resigning she unknowingly gave up both state and federal unemployment benefits.
My understanding is the employer won't face increased unemployment insurance premiums.
Posts: 28,821
Threads: 209
Joined: May 2025
Ombligo wrote:
And don't think your employer will have your best interests.
I know someone who was just tricked into resigning this week rather than to be let go. They told her that they didn't want her employment history to show she was dismissed. So by resigning she unknowingly gave up both state and federal unemployment benefits.
That’s unfortunate. Your friend should have realized that, under the current circumstances, NO ONE would interpret her being fired as reflecting poorly upon her or her abilities.
Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
Ombligo wrote:
And don't think your employer will have your best interests.
I know someone who was just tricked into resigning this week rather than to be let go. They told her that they didn't want her employment history to show she was dismissed. So by resigning she unknowingly gave up both state and federal unemployment benefits.
My understanding is the employer won't face increased unemployment insurance premiums.
This story needs a little more details first.
Was this person being dismissed because of a performance/discipline matter, or was the dismissal unrelated to the employee's behavior and performance?
If the former, the offer of a resignation-in-lieu-of-firing is in all likelihood a courtesy extended in good faith. If the latter, then the dismissal falls into the category of a lay-off, in which case the category of her dismissal may not actually matter if she can show that her resignation was compulsory, and that her dismissal was not performance-related.