Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Wrongful termination conditions

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/wrongful-terminations.html

Exceptions to an At-Will Employment Termination

An employer can fire an at-will employee for any reason, except for the following:

•Discrimination - The employer cannot terminate employment because the employee is a certain race, nationality, religion, sex, age, or in some states, sexual orientation.

•Retaliation - An employer cannot fire an employee because the employee filed a claim of discrimination or is participating in an investigation for discrimination. This "retaliation" is forbidden under civil rights law.

•Contractual Employees - Generally, an employee with an employment contract can only be terminated for the reasons stated in the contract. Employment contracts for specified periods of time or permitting terminations only for specific reasons are rare today.

•Illegal Acts - An employer is not permitted to fire an employee because the employee refuses to commit an act that is illegal.

•Family or Medical Leave - Federal law permits most employees to take a leave of absence for specific family or medical problems. An employer is not permitted to fire an employee who takes family or medical leave for a reason outlined in the Family and Medical Leave Act.

•Not Following Your Own Termination Procedure - Often, the employee handbook or company policy outlines a procedure that must be followed before an employee is terminated. If the employer fires an employee without following this procedure, the employee may have a claim for wrongful termination.

The only possible shot in this case is Intel not following its own procedures, if it could be proven.

by
| 4294 views | | 15 replies (last July 22, 2025) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+CysOUvv

15 replies (most recent on top)

@OP So you're telling me there's a chance?

Yeaaahhhh!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @g2gz+CysOUvv

I don't believe OP was wrongfully terminated.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @g2gy+CysOUvv

@1V5E You got me curious: how is terminating an employee depriving them of property rights?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @g2gx+CysOUvv

@fHb imagine being terminated for doing a good job for 19 years

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @g2gc+CysOUvv

I filed an EEOC complaint without expecting to win just like Intel fired me without expecting the stock price to go up. I just believe filing a complaint is the right thing to do like voting - whomever you vote might not win but you show your belief. Just be honest to yourself. If you feel you are treated fair and has no complaint, move on and do not waste time in this type of forum; if you feel unfair and unjust, file a complaint. That is the right way to channel your feeling.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @8720+CysOUvv

The EEOC will issue a Right to Sue Notice if you request it; but your chances of winning a discrimination suit base solely on the fact that you feel your performance review/bonus was unfair are somewhere between slim and none. Courts are generally not in the business of second-guessing employers' evaluations of their employees unless you can actually point to a discriminatory nexus.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @3Otv+CysOUvv

Terminating Employees under FMLA

FMLA doesn't provide employees with any greater rights to reinstatement or other benefits and conditions of employment, including continued employment. An employer may terminate an employee regardless of FMLA leave status provided that there is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination. Examples of such reasons from relevant caselaw include the following:

If an employee would have been terminated regardless of FMLA leave because of poor performance, then the employee may be terminated before, during or after FMLA leave. See Richmond v. Oneok (1997); and

If, prior to the leave, an employee fails to meet the goals of a corrective action program designed to improve performance, then the employee may be terminated upon return from FMLA leave. See Hubbard v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Assoc. (1998).

Other reasons that employers may terminate employees who are on FMLA leave include:

Infractions or poor performance that come to the employer's attention during the leave

Insubordination, fraud, or other prohibited conduct while out on leave

Also, an employee who is on FMLA leave may be considered for layoff during a reduction in workforce so long as the employee is not chosen for layoff on the basis of FMLA leave.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @11xU+CysOUvv

File a EEOC complaint. It is easy. No need to get a lawyer. The burden is on your manager not you to prove you deserve ssl 4 or whatever he gave you.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1gBd+CysOUvv

This makes sense. Managers did not know until a week before the ISP was announced.

Any termination action is depriving the employee of his property rights. Any such termination should be after giving fair notice and chance to improve. Whereas Intel deliberately planned this in last three years and targeted employees by giving s/L 4/5 because managers would not have been willing to give other than "successful" to those targeted employees. If the managers where told to do so, then it would become obvious and then Intel will crate a paper trail. So what they did was in the focal review committee for each dept and the HR rep in collusion decided on who should get SL 4/5. After they did that Intel executed on its plan. This Intel action is illegal and smells dead rat in MCMs closet. I strongly urge, even if you take the payout, you can still file EEOC complaint. EEOC is going to consolidate and wont second guess as we all have the same story to tell - that Intel's action was clearly against, ADA, ADEA, and other civil rights violation.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1j1h+CysOUvv

I know of cases where ppl who were layed off were able to get hired back as green badges. Not sure how they did it

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1mdM+CysOUvv

Any termination action is depriving the employee of his property rights. Any such termination should be after giving fair notice and chance to improve. Whereas Intel deliberately planned this in last three years and targeted employees by giving s/L 4/5 because managers would not have been willing to give other than "successful" to those targeted employees. If the managers where told to do so, then it would become obvious and then Intel will crate a paper trail. So what they did was in the focal review committee for each dept and the HR rep in collusion decided on who should get SL 4/5. After they did that Intel executed on its plan. This Intel action is illegal and smells dead rat in MCMs closet. I strongly urge, even if you take the payout, you can still file EEOC complaint. EEOC is going to consolidate and wont second guess as we all have the same story to tell - that Intel's action was clearly against, ADA, ADEA, and other civil rights violation.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1V5E+CysOUvv

85% of employees targeted are above 40 yr's. Curiosx2

Quote: What if the process used to identify employees to layoff results in a disportionate number of a protected class being impacted?

— Curious

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @Z4v+CysOUvv

What if the process used to identify employees to layoff results in a disportionate number of a protected class being impacted?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rMC+CysOUvv

The original poster is right. Intel has the right under "right to work" to terminate anyone, without cause, they please. Barring any of the exception outline above. It's tough going, but that's how the law works.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @fHb+CysOUvv

Sorry, formatting got killed.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @lyk+CysOUvv

Post a reply

: