Word of the Month for August 2026: Constructive Termination (aka Constructive Discharge)

It's August and you know what that mean, right?!  

Well, for some people it's a time for new beginnings and in the case of others - a new job.

Thing is, any 1st day of any month is a day of new beginnings.  

Today's new beginning was one youngish lady with toddler in tow who I met at the city public library the other day.  

You know the problem with most public city libraries is that they are generally devoid of anything legal related.  Lots of romance novels, young adult mysteries, graphic novels about Batman and the Justice League but try to find anything legal related and you get bupkis.

Anyway, Lady tells me that she recently left her place of employment because her employer was making life at said place of employment too difficult to continue working there and she was now looking for something (at the city public library that has NOTHING legal related in its entire collection) to help her seek retribution against her now former employer.

What, I suspect, Lady was looking for was something related to constructive termination/discharge.   

CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION occurs when an employee resigns due to intolerable working conditions that were so severe or pervasive that a reasonable person in their position would feel compelled to quit. It is treated legally as if the employer terminated the employee, even though the resignation was voluntary in form.

So, imagine you love playing at a playground. But the grown-up who runs the playground starts doing mean things every day:

• They take away your toys on purpose.

• They yell at you for no reason.

• They make you play all alone while other kids get to play together.

• You ask for help, but no one listens.

Now you feel so sad and hurt that you decide, “I don’t want to come to this playground anymore!”

Even though you chose to leave, it was really because the grown-up made it so bad that you had no other choice.

That’s what constructive termination means at work:

“I quit…but it’s because you made my job soooo awful, I had to leave.”

From a more grown-up perspective, in Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004), the plaintiff, Nancy Drew Suders, quit her job as a dispatcher for the Pennsylvania State Police in August 1998.  She claimed that she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor.

In an 8-1 decision, the SCOTUS ruled that an employee faced with a situation in which a "reasonable person ... would have felt compelled to resign" could bring suit even if she had not filed a report with the employer before resigning.

After Suders, in cases of constructive termination, the "reasonable person" standard asks:

Would a hypothetical, reasonable employee — in the same circumstances — have felt that quitting was the only viable option?

It does not ask whether the actual plaintiff personally felt forced to quit. Instead, courts look at:

• What an average person with the same job, status, and in the same workplace would do,
• Under similar pressures or abusive conditions,
• With ordinary emotional resilience, not hypersensitivity.

To prove a constructive dismissal, an employee must be able to show:

• There’s been a serious breach of their contract of employment, and
• They’ve resigned in response to that breach and not for some other reason.

As to the first limb of this twofold test, the employee must be able to show a fundamental breach of their employment contract. This could be a breach of either an express contractual term or breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence but, in either case, this must be sufficiently serious so as to justify termination of their contract.

As to the second limb of the test, the employee must show that the actions of the employer resulted in their resignation. This often means that the employee’s decision to resign must quickly follow the conduct complained of, unless they’ve made it clear that they’re working under protest.  

 If there is a marked time gap between the conduct complained of and the employee either lodging a formal grievance or handing in their resignation, an adverse inference can potentially be drawn here from any delay. 

The thing is that not all situations qualify as constructive termination and in some instances, courts have considered facts on a case-by-case basis.  It is important to know what's what before acting.  Some situations which MIGHT qualify as constructive termination where:

1. Demotion Without Cause

• An employee is suddenly demoted without explanation or justification.  If accompanied by humiliation, pay cuts, or loss of duties, this may cross the line into constructive discharge.

2. Unwarranted Reassignments

• A manager repeatedly transfers an employee to undesirable shifts or far-away locations to “encourage” resignation.  Example: Moving a single mother from a daytime role to an overnight one without justification. 

3. Unrealistic or Punitive Workload

• A high-performing employee is suddenly assigned an impossible workload with the goal of setting them up to fail. If this is targeted retaliation (e.g., after reporting harassment), it could support a claim. 

4. Exclusion and Isolation

• An employee is systematically excluded from meetings, communications, or work-related decisions.  If this is retaliatory or based on discrimination, it may be grounds for constructive discharge.

5. Microaggressions or Patterned Disrespect

• Persistent subtle discrimination (e.g., sexist jokes, mocking religious beliefs) that creates a hostile work environment. Even if no single act is severe, the cumulative effect can rise to an intolerable level.

6. Ignoring Workplace Harassment

• An employer fails to act after multiple reports of harassment (verbal, physical, or online), leaving the employee feeling unsafe or unsupported.  Courts often consider employer inaction or retaliation as critical in these cases. 

7. Forced “Resignation” Under Pressure

• A supervisor tells an employee: “Resign or be fired.”  Even if the employee chooses to resign, courts may find this is constructive termination due to coercion.

In case you were wondering, there are a number of REAL cases involving constructive termination, such as:

1. Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (2016) 

Holding: In a federal employment constructive discharge claim, the limitations period begins when the employee resigns, not when the last discriminatory act occurs.

Key Takeaway: This case clarified the timing for filing a claim — constructive discharge claims accrue on the date of resignation, not earlier. 

2. Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 1238, 876 P.2d 1022 (1994)

Court: Supreme Court of California

• Facts: Employee resigned alleging intolerable working conditions, including employer inaction over workplace misconduct.

• Holding: The court ruled that constructive termination exists when the employer knowingly permits conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would be forced to resign. The court set the standard for California constructive discharge claims.

Key takeaway: This is the leading California case that explains when resignation counts as wrongful termination.

3. MacKenzie v. Miller Brewing Co., 241 F.3d 870 (7th Cir. 2001)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit

• Facts: Plaintiff alleged gender discrimination and a hostile work environment, leading her to resign.

• Holding: The court ruled against her, emphasizing that conditions must be objectively intolerable, not just unpleasant or stressful.

Key takeaway: Demonstrates that courts require more than subjective dissatisfaction; conditions must meet an objective threshold of severity.

4. Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

• Facts: A city employee claimed constructive termination after a co-worker groped her and management failed to act.

• Holding: The court found the single incident, though serious, did not create such intolerable conditions as to support constructive discharge.

Key takeaway: Failure to act can sometimes support a claim, but courts still require the conditions to be pervasive or ongoing.

5. Fischer v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 742 F.3d 377 (9th Cir. 2014)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

• Facts: Employee alleged retaliation, demotion, and emotional stress that forced resignation.

• Holding: The court held that while the workplace was unpleasant, it did not meet the threshold for constructive discharge.

Key takeaway: Not every demotion, reassignment, or unpleasant condition rises to the level of constructive termination.

Bottom line, constructive termination cases can be tricky.  Just because you feel that you were treated unfairly doesn't mean that said treatment raises to the "reasonable person" standard.  Best to document everything and consult with an attorney before doing anything. 

Sounds More Like an Interrogation

Have you ever had to go through the pain of a job interview?   Me?  I've done lots of them.

Among other things, what I got out of the interviewing experience was a long list of illegal questions potential employers ought not ask in an interview.

 Why?

Most illegal questions focus around one thing - they don't relate to how a job is to be performed.

Samples of illegal questions include:

• How old are you?  Why illegal: Age discrimination is prohibited under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) if the applicant is 40 or older. Age should not factor into hiring decisions.
• Are you married?  Why illegal: Marital status is not relevant to job performance and may lead to discrimination based on marital or family status.
• Is English your first language?  Why illegal: Related to national origin discrimination.
• Do you have any disabilities? Why illegal: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits asking about disabilities before a job offer is made.
• Have you ever filed a Workers' Compensation claim?  Why illegal: This could lead to discrimination against individuals who have been injured and violates ADA protections.
• Have you ever been arrested?  Why illegal: While convictions may be relevant, arrests without convictions should not be used in hiring decisions, as it can lead to racial discrimination claims.
• Who do you live with?  Why illegal: Could reveal marital status, family structure, or sexual orientation, which may lead to discrimination.
• Do you drink or use drugs?  Why illegal: Employers cannot ask about past substance abuse; they may only ask if you can perform job duties safely.

Recently, I had an interview for the position of library director of a public library.  Yeah, I know - not legal.  But over time, you realize that all library's have the same issues.  

One question they asked (and it was couched in a way so try to make it less obtrusive saying "We ask everyone this question - like that makes it all better): 

If we were to look at your social media content, would we find anything objectionable?

First, what does "objectionable" mean?  What might be objectionable to one person might not be to another.  

To the point of whether it is a legal question, or not, the question itself is not explicitly illegal under federal law.  However, it is risky and can lead to illegal discrimination if used improperly.

So, how might this question about social media be be problematic?

While reviewing publicly available information is legal, asking about it during an interview could:

• Pressure candidates to disclose personal information (which it did and, by their reactions, is what they were hoping for),
• Create a chilling effect on lawful off-duty conduct (some states, like California and New York, protect lawful off-duty activities).

In addition, questions about social media usage could suggest implied off-duty conduct discrimination. In many states, it is illegal to discriminate against lawful off-duty conduct, such as political activity, social associations, or lifestyle choices that are not job-related.

Another reason questions about social media usage are problematic is because this type of question leads to potential for discrimination based on protected categories such as:

• Age (ADEA) 
• National origin (Title VII)
• Race or ethnicity (Title VII)
• Religion (Title VII)
• Sexual orientation or gender identity (Title VII, EEOC interpretations)
• Disability (ADA) 
• Pregnancy (Pregnancy Discrimination Act)

Finally, if an employer later rejects the candidate, the candidate could argue the rejection was based on information discovered through social media about protected characteristics.

A better question they could have asked me might have been: 

This role requires maintaining a professional image consistent with our code of conduct, including public-facing behavior and communication. Can you comply with this expectation?”

OR

We expect employees to adhere to our social media policy regarding confidentiality and professionalism. Are you comfortable with this policy?

Other questions which are not in-and-of-themselves illegal but suggest an illegal motive thereby making them illegal questions include:

• Can you work nights or weekends?  Not illegal in itself if the job requires it.  Becomes illegal if used to screen out candidates based on religious practices or caregiving responsibilities (religion, gender, family status).  Example: Denying a candidate who observes a religious Sabbath without exploring whether accommodation violates Title VII.
• Do you have reliable  transportation? Not illegal in itself.  Becomes illegal if used to screen out individuals based on disability (can’t drive due to medical reasons) or economic status. 
• What club or organizations to you belong to?  Not illegal in itself.  Becomes illegal if it seeks to uncover religious, political, or protected affiliations or if the information is used for discrimination. 
• Can you lift 50 pounds?  Not illegal if it is a bona fide job requirement.  Becomes illegal if asked without stating it is a job requirement and is used to screen out individuals with disabilities, violating the ADA. 
• What year did you graduate?  Not illegal in itself.  Becomes illegal if it is used to determine age, violating ADEA protections. 
• Have you ever been arrested?  Not illegal to discuss convictions related to job duties.  Becomes illegal because arrest records alone should not be used in employment decisions, leading to disparate impact on certain racial groups. 
• Are you planning on starting a family soon?  Not illegal to ask about availability.  Becomes illegal because it suggests gender/pregnancy discrimination under Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. 

So, why are these questions illegal?  Essentially, the motive behind the question and how the information is used determines legality.  Questions that can elicit information about protected categories (age, disability, gender, religion, national origin, etc.) and influence hiring decisions violate:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (race, color, religion, sex, national origin)
• ADA (disability)
• ADEA (age 40+)
• Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Immigration Reform and Control Act (work authorization vs. citizenship)

Bottom line, if you aren't sure whether you should ask a question and are concerned that it might expose you to liability, your best bet would be to either run it past legal first or just not ask that question.

I'm just sayin. 

Two (2) Weeks

Have you ever been fired?

So, picture it - you're cruising through your job, doing your thing aaaaaand you get called in to the bosses office (or HR)

where they tell you you are being terminated.  

 

Consequently,  you are ushered out the door without so much as a how do you do.

Which all seems odd.  Why, you might ask?  Well, why is it employers can terminate you and kick you to the curb THAT DAY (or even within seconds) but you the employee has to give 2 weeks notice before you leave?

I mean, it doesn't seem equitable that employers can do whatever they want but employees have to wait it out for 2 weeks at a place they hate.

Not equitable, at all.

I suspect it comes down to the fact that most states follow an at-will employment relationship.  For our purposes, at-will employment relationship is on where employers can fire you at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all as long as it’s not illegal (e.g., not because of race, religion, retaliation, etc.).

Conversely, employees can quit at any time for any reason, or with no reason given without legal penalty (unless they have a contract that says otherwise).

Even under an at-will employment relationship, employers cannot terminate you for reasons that violate:

• Federal or state discrimination laws (race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, pregnancy, etc.)

• Retaliation laws (for reporting harassment, OSHA violations, whistleblowing, filing workers’ comp claims, taking protected medical/military leave, etc.)

• Public policy (firing you for serving jury duty, voting, refusing to break the law).

• Contracts (union agreements, executive contracts, or even implied promises in handbooks).

While at-will employment relationships exist in most states, there are exceptions to the rule:

Montana (the only true "not-at-will" state):
After a probationary period (usually 12 months unless a contract is in play), employees can only be terminated for "good cause" under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA).

California
Is an at-will state (under Cal. Labor Code § 2922).  Recognizes implied contracts (i.e. handbooks and policies) that limit firing to "for cause."   Courts are willing to enforce these implied agreements.  Strong public-policy and whistleblower protections are also in play. 

Arizona
At-will by statute (A.R.S. § 23-1501) but recognizes implied-in-fact contracts and public policy exceptions broadly.

Nevada
Similar to California - strong recognition of implied contracts and public policy exceptions.  Even though at-will is the default, these Nevada laws carve out exceptions:

• NRS 613.330 – Prohibits termination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, or national origin (discrimination).
• NRS 613.340 – Prohibits retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices or filing a complaint.
• NRS 618.445 – Protects employees from retaliation for reporting workplace safety issues (OSHA).
• NRS 281.370 – Protects public employees from political activity discrimination.

Massachusetts
Recognizes implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which can require payment of earned commissions/benefits even if employment ends.  While there’s no single Massachusetts statute declaring “all employment is at-will,” several statutes limit at-will firing:

• Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 151B → Prohibits discrimination (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, etc.).

• Whistleblower Protection Act (Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 149, § 185) → Protects public employees from retaliation for reporting wrongdoing.

• Wage Act (Mass. Gen. Laws Ch.  149, §§ 148–150) wages, and can’t terminate to avoid payment.

• Public Policy Exception (Case Law) → Employees can’t be fired for exercising a legally guaranteed right (jury duty, filing workers’ comp, refusing to commit a crime).

New Jersey
Recognizes a broad "public policy" exception (Pierce v. Ortho Phamaceutical, 84 N.J. 58, 417 A.2d 505 (1980)). Terminations that violate public interest may be wrongful.

Delaware
Good faith/fair dealing exceptions recognizes, particularly when employer terminates to avoid paying benefits. Delaware’s at-will presumption is limited by various statutes, including:

• 19 Del. C. § 711 (Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act)  Prohibits termination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, genetic information, or national origin.

• 19 Del. C. § 1703 (Whistleblower Protection Act) Protects employees from retaliation for reporting violations of law.

• 19 Del. C. § 2365 (Workers’ Compensation Law) Prohibits retaliation for filing workers’ comp claims.

• Public Employee Protections  Certain public employees (teachers, police, firefighters) have statutory “for cause” protections, not at-will.

So, essentially, an at-will employment relationship says I can quit at any time and employers can terminate me at any time.  So where does the 2 weeks thing come in?

The 2 weeks thing comes into play because, as unwritten rules go, giving 2 weeks notice gives the employer time to find a replacement or transition work, which avoids burning bridges.  Also, employers are more likely to give good references if the employee leaves on good terms.  Finally, some companies have formal policies requiring notice to receive certain benefits (like a PTO payout).

OK, great, but why is there no stigma against employers just drop kicking an employee?  I'd say, it's because usually employers have more capital (i.e. money) and they know they have the upper hand.

I knew one friend of mine who got the boot and was tossed to the curb within mere minutes.  They didn't even let him clear out his desk.  

Why?

When an employer decides to terminate someone, they may want to act quickly (e.g., to protect trade secrets, avoid sabotage, or stop performance issues).  Employers might kick someone out poste haste because paying someone for an extra two weeks when they aren’t needed could be expensive.  An at-will employment relationship gives employers this discretion.

It all sounds so antiseptic but it doesn't take into account that pain-in-the bumpkis that is a result of being terminated without notice.

So, let's get down to brass tax.  MUST an employee give notice before they quit?

 

Short answer, no.  

There's no law saying you have to give notice before leaving.  Of course, unless you have copious amounts of cash just laying around, there is a whole lot of articles on why leaving without notice is not such a good idea like:

• Future References – If you want to use that job as a reference, leaving professionally may keep that door open.

• Networking Reputation – Industries can be smaller than they look. Your old boss might know your future boss.

• Transitioning Benefits – Some companies only pay out unused vacation/PTO if you give proper notice.

• Avoiding Burning Bridges – If you ever need to come back (or work with them indirectly), a professional exit keeps it from being awkward.

The thing about networking and maintaining future references, I had an instance where a former employer had to ask permission if she could give a reference.  I told her if she has to ask for "permission," don't bother - I'll find someone else.

As to burning brides, so what?  Walking on eggshells all the time is no way to live.  Besides, no employer is big enough to be able to interfere with a former employee's future employment without some consequences.

While at-will employment is prevalent in the majority of the United States, former employees have legal avenues to challenge unlawful interference with their future employment opportunities, such as:

1. Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal.4th 1140, 94 P.3d 1082, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 289 (2004) 

• Summary: The California Supreme Court held that a former employer could be liable for tortious interference with an at-will employment relationship if the interference involved unlawful or unethical conduct, such as misappropriating confidential information or improperly soliciting clients. The court emphasized that while at-will employment is generally terminable by either party, interference with such relationships through wrongful means is actionable.

2. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 117 S.Ct. 843, 137 L.Ed.2d 124 (1997) 

• Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's anti-retaliation provisions apply to former employees. In this case, the former employer allegedly provided a negative reference to a prospective employer in retaliation for the employee's prior discrimination complaint. The Court held that such post-employment retaliation is prohibited under Title VII.

3. Pantchenko v. C.B. Dolge Co., 581 F.2d 1052 (2d Cir. 1978)

• Summary: In this case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer's refusal to provide a reference and making disparaging statements about a former employee to prospective employers could constitute tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The court emphasized that such actions could harm the employee's ability to secure future employment.

4. Rutherford v. American Bank of Commerce, 565 F.2d 1162 (10th Cir. 1977)

• Summary: The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a former employer's actions, including advising prospective employers that the employee had filed a Title VII sex discrimination suit, could constitute tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The court held that such actions could harm the employee's future employment prospects.

So, let's say you want to quit.  What can you do to convey the message, ensuring that there is no room for doubt for what you are doing, AND you do it in a classy enough way so that everyone leaves with a warm a fuzzy feeling?)?  Well, you can do what this guy did and everyone goes home feeling less funky.

So, whether you're a CEO with a huge golden parachute or a little guy (or gal) with no cash but a whole lot of moxie, know that you don't have to put up with an uppity employer and can just quit and leave whenever you want.

Told you so!

Have you ever had the opportunity to rub something in someone else's face?  Like, you tell your kid not to put their hand in an open flame and off to the emergency room you had to go because kid didn't listen?  

Maybe it was the time you told a buddy that not paying taxes would result in the IRS come knocking on their door and they get audited 5 years running?

Maybe it was the time you told your classmate that if they didn't uncross their eyes that they would stay that way and they wound up wearing glasses?

Satisfying, isn't it?

Take, for example a former student of mine who came up to me many moons ago.  Seems, once upon a time, I had said something during a library tour about AmJur Proof of Facts.  For those not in law school or who may never use AmJur Proof of Facts,

Proof of Facts provides expert advice on how best to prepare your case. It shows how to determine which facts are essential and how to prove them. It discusses the elements of proof, practice and evidentiary considerations, and defense considerations, and provides model discovery. It is organized and indexed so you can find facts-in-issue, sample proofs, and collateral references quickly and easily. Question-and-answer dialogues guide lawyers in assembling facts, preparing factual issues for settlement or trial, and examining every type of witness. Technical, scientific, and medical information help the user speak the language of the experts.

Now, back to former student.  Seems former student was interviewing for a job - a really good job - when the interviewer asked him whether he was familiar with AmJur Proof of Facts.  I mean, it's one of those questions that are so out in left field but so apropos that you'd never expect it in a real life interview.

Anyway, former student vaguely remembered something I said during a tour of the library about how useful it was and that it helped me (the professor) so many times in real life.  

Former student, couldn't actually remember anything I'd said about AmJur Proof of Facts but he did remember that I had told them how awesome it was and that I liked it and, wouldn't you know it, student got the job BECAUSE he knew enough to say he had heard me talk about it.

Yeah, pat me on the back.  Seems AmJur Proof of Facts is so popular with students' new employer that new employer insists former student include it with everything former student submits.  What is even more surprising is that someone was actually listening in class!  

Who knew?!

I guess it's one of those things that sticks to a synaptic connection somewhere in the brain that you hope you'll never have to use but are sure glad you had it when you need it.

Yeah, it's just like that.

Wingman

I really dig being married.  Took a while to get up to speed but it seems like the wife and I have finally hit our stride.  She is the ultimate wingman.  True, it took having to navigate two kids, two houses, a few vehicles, a couple nasty employers, navigating around lots (and lots) of crazy and a 2,500 mile cross-country (coast to literal coast) trip to get it together but I think we've finally got it going on.

Take, for example, the other day.  I was driving and was trying to turn right onto a busy thoroughfare.  I says to the wife, "You look left and I'll look right - tell me when we're clear."  I mean, what a great system!  The way the car was situated, it was more comfortable to look to the right and her to the left and, working together we were able to get out and about in record time.

Good times.

Reminds me of an incident the other day whilst I was trying to help a student find information on a research project.  For those not in the know, I'm no longer with the county law library helping the legions of pro se litigants, attorneys, judges, senators, representatives who would walk through the front door.  Nope, now I work at a law school trying to help in-grateful students understand the "how" of legal research.  Failing miserably I think I am but forward I slog.

Anyway, student was given a problem by her boss.  Seems a client had a medical procedure planned and went on FMLA (family and medical leave act).  Well, seems client didn't actually go on leave when they were scheduled to go on leave and unilaterally decided to delay the procedure to go on a vacation and then to the procedure.  Seems client's employer found out about the delay, demanded client return to work, client said no, employer fired client, client wants to, now, sue employer for wrongful termination and still go on FMLA leave.

Got all that?

The difference between California (where I used to live/work) and South Carolina (where I now reside) is that California has resources that other states can only dream about and South Carolina, well, it doesn't have squat in the way of practice oriented stuff.  Well, there that and law libraries in other states don't seem to understand the importance of having practice aids in their collection.  Really limits the creative process (and the practice or law).

So, with the resources I have, I tell student to go and look at AmJur Proof of Facts and look in the index under FMLA.  I also suggest they take a look at AmJur Trials while I go look in the United States Code Annotated (USCA) under FMLA and see what it talks about regarding an employee delaying taking leave under the FMLA.

Student declined my suggestions.  See, I was interested to see if Proof of Facts or Trials had anything on the FMLA - but not so interested to have to go and look it up myself.  That's what a wingman is for - to help out when you are about to do something else.  I mean, it's not my project.  I student doesn't want to do what it takes to learn about this stuff, so sad, too bad.

Turns out, there is quite a bit about people who unilaterally try to delay leave as well as a few cases.

In a last ditch effort, I suggest that student call 1-800-Westlaw and talk to a reference Attorney to get a search query with which to conduct a search in Westlaw Edge.

This, student could do.

Guess using print resources were beneath them.  Too bad that.  They had the prospects of being a good wingman.  That's the way it is, right?  Some people are great wingmen, others are great spectators.

Glad I have a great wingman on my side I know I can count on.

Reading makes you smart(er)

So, today as I was going about my business, my brother sent me a funny list of newspapers and persons who reads them, to wit:  

• The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
• The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
• The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.
• USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand The New York Times.
• The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could find the time and if they didn't have to leave Southern California to do it.
• The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country.
• The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
• The New York Post is read by people who don't care who is running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
• The Chicago Tribune is read by people that are in prison that used to run the state, & would like to do so again, as would their constituents that are currently free on bail.
• The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.
• The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure if there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are gay, handicapped, minority, feminist, atheists, and those who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy, provided of course, that they are not Republicans.
• The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
• The Seattle Times is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.

I'd say pretty good estimations, all.  Of course, the reason this all got stuck up in my brain is because of the conversation I had with a person I met in a local eatery.  Seems person was in their junior year of undergrad and was bemoaning the fact that they had to write a three (3) page paper on Fahrenheit 451 (written by Ray Bradbury, a book about book burning)

Person was freaking out wondering how they could get out of having to actually read the book because, "books are dumb!"  Says they, "isn't there a shorter version or maybe a comic book about this?!"  

Yeah, I'm guessing no - but there was a movie that came out years back and I'm sitting there thinking are books really dumb or is it that people who refuse to read are looking forward to a career in which they have to say, "you want fries with that?"

Sad that there is a generation who think books are dumb.  Proud I am that I have daughters who love to read.  Absolutely love it, they do.  They like playing on mom's phone, too, but get a book with pictures in their hand and they are in pig heaven.

The fact is "studies" have consistently shown that a person can improve their verbal skills through reading, and even more by reading good writing.  In their article What Reading Does for the Mind, Anne E. Cunningham and Keith E Stanovich note that:

Most theorists are agreed that the bulk of vocabulary growth during a child’s lifetime occurs indirectly through language exposure ... Furthermore, many researchers are convinced that reading volume ... is the prime contributor to individual differences in children’s vocabularies.

While I miss the pictures, I don't think I have ever missed the chance to read a good book.  I remember the vivid pictures that would course though my mind as I read such books as Pilgrim's Progress, The Hobbit, Going After Cacciato, Huon of the Horn, or even Fahrenheit 451.  

I have no doubt that my mind was altered and enhanced reading works of Shakespeare, Leo Tolstoy, F. Scott Fitzgerald, James Joyce, Herman Melville, Mark Twain, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, or Charles Dickens.

Sad, then, that I have occasion to sit next to generations of "kids" who are trying to get out of reading for the sake of reading just so they can move on to the next video game (or whatever it is that provides diversion these days).

Oh well, there's always another generation coming down the pike.  Let's hope they get it and realize there is more to life than just finding the next diversion.

Saw that one coming

Everyone is out looking for a job these days but did you know that some professions require that you go to school AND take a test to be able to be employed in that profession?  Yeah, there are.  

Take lawyers, for instance.  You have to go to school for at least 2.5 years (at $800/unit), then take the/a bar exam for your state of choice (costs vary from state to state) and then you get to be crowned "attorney."

Other professions that require a license to be employed include:

• medicine
• nursing
• dentistry
• teaching
• veterinary medicine
• pharmacy
• psychology
• engineering
• architecture

Another profession that requires a license is that of a Certified Public Accountant (aka a bean counter).  So, to get a CPA certification, you need an undergrad degree (Bachelor's of Administration) and some states require that you also get a Master's Degree.  Then there's the test and the continuing education requirements and you'd think that anyone who had to go through all that to become an official bean counter would do whatever it took to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

You'd think, wouldn't you?  Enter Lady who came in my library the other day.  Seems Lady's folks were in the market for an estate plan to protect their assets.  Lady was surfing the web one day when she came across a CPA's website.  

Seems CPA was advertising online that for $500 she would draft an estate plan for two people that includes a Revocable Living Trust, a Pour-over Will, and Heath and Financial Durable Powers of Attorney.  That's a pretty good deal.  Two people for $500?  Heck, the package the wife and I got was for little over $2,500 and that was with a real life attorney who specialized in estate planning. 

Now, if I'm paying little over $2,500 for a package prepared by an estate planning attorney, imagine what $500 from a CPA (i.e. someone without any legal education) is going to look like?  Regardless, Lady's folks know a deal when they see one and they pay their money, got their package and, years down the road when Lady's folks die off, Lady finds that the estate plan was not worth the paper it was printed on (but you saw that one coming a mile away - didn't you?!).

Lady is furious and comes steaming into my law library.  She wants justice.  She wants her pound of flesh.  She wants heads to roll (forgetting the fact that Lady's parents were none too bright buying an estate plan from a CPA (i.e. someone who does not practice law)).  I suggested Lady take a look at:

• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis, Vol. 33 Chp. 380 (Negligence))
• California Civil Practice: Torts (TR)
• American Jurisprudence Pleading and Practice Forms Annotated (TR)

I also suggested she talk to and file a complaint with the District Attorney for the CPA's unlawful practice of law (what with not being a lawyer, and all).  Then, for good measure, I suggested she contact the California Board of Accountancy because I'm betting they have rules against this sort of thing (or at least they should have).

Yep, there are some unscrupulous "professional" people out in employment land.  Good thing there are law Librarians who are around to help you get back on your feet when you get the wind knocked out of you.

Work, work, work, work!

Do you remember your first real job.  I'm not talking babysitting or mowing the neighbor's lawn or even selling lemonade at the corner.  

Nope, I'm talking about doing the 9-5 grind, having to deal with  onerous co-workers and/or bosses, endless meetings, and all those hours of sweet overtime.

Yeah, I remember the days when I used to get overtime back when I drove a stake-bed truck for Goodyear.  I remember driving all around Los Angeles and Orange Counties 15 hours a day, six days a week.  

While my hourly wasn't all that great, I made an absolute killing on overtime.  Those were the days.  I suspect though, what with all the stories of employers stealing wages from their employees, there are a whole lot of people who don't benefit all that much from overtime.

Take, for instance the young lady who came in the other day.  Seems a iron-worker by trade, young lady claimed that her employer had stiffed her for hundreds of hours of overtime.  She tried taking it to the union but they sided with the employer (no surprise, there).

Livid, young lady want to know what she can do to recoup her losses.  First I suggested she take a look at the U.S. Department of Labor's website.  It's a great tool to help get you focused on what your rights are as they related to money owed.  Next, I suggested she take a look at:

• California Wage and Hour: law and litigation (CEB)
• Wage and Hour Manual: for California Employers (Castle Pub)
• California Employment Law: the complete survival guide to doing business in California (Employment Law Pub).
• California Practice Guide: Employment Law (TR)
• EEOC Compliance Manual (CCH)

and off young lady went to plot her revenge.

Yeah, really stinks when you put in your 12 hour day and find you got stiffed for doing a hard day's work.  Good thing there are county law libraries around to help get you dial in to where you need to be.