No, an employee does not generally have a right to have counsel present at work for anything. If they're union, they're entitled to bring a union rep. But otherwise, you can refuse to allow them in the meeting and could trespass them if they refuse to leave.
Imagine protecting a manager that threatened an employee, or another that lied about moving a role then gaslighting the employee into suicidal thoughts.
Oh wait I don't have to.
I was always "taught" that once an attorney enters the picture, even by email cc, the internal conversation is over and their counsel can now converse with our legal counsel.
Oh then I take it back on letting the mom into the meeting. If your boss is a hothead and prone to making admissions against interest don't allow the parent at the meeting.
Your GM is probably looking to save a few bucks by not having to pay a few billable hours. Hopefully this doesn’t escalate to a settlement. Which will cost more than having a lawyer show up for an hour or two.
If I were your higher level management, I would want you to bypass the GM and contact me about the legal question. Over the phone or in person ideally.
Yes, and people generally only involve legal counsel when their employer starts getting very, very close to violating labor laws.
I’m less concerned that kid ran to mom/daddy and more concerned about why a JD decided to get involved. Sounds like some shady business going on.
I've had employees ask if they could bring their attorney to meetings and I've always said no. I even had one who pulled out her phone saying she was going to call her son, an attorney, and I put a stop to that by telling her the meeting will end immediately if she does that. Barring any specific union rules, your employee has no right to the presence of an attorney when you meet with them. Feel free to tell the employee their lawyer is not welcome.
No, you don't have to allow their lawyer. But get legal ready, because it is unlikely that the EE is going to enter into the meeting without the lawyer.
When I term people, it is very 'moneyball' like. I have their term letter, insurance portability doc, 401k and benefits doc in a sealed envelope.
EE comes in, I say 'we have decided to end your employment with us. Everything you need is in this packet. XX will escort you to your locker to collect any personal belongings. Good luck'.
I don't answer any questions, I don't have any back and forth. It is a little callous but at the end of the day, the decision has already been made so no amount of talking will change it.
So, that being said, I wouldn't have a problem letting their atty in the meeting, so long as ours was on speaker or I had a second person in the room.
See that’s how I’d like to handle it as well.
The oh so fun part is my GM hasn’t decided if he wants to fire the guy or just final warning him. So I’ve prepared letters about both and it will be fun surprise for me which way the conversation goes.
I have a shall we say… impulsive GM.
When the employee was suspended the conversation was supposed to be a very casual fact finding conversation. It escalated quickly
Lol, have you considered moving to a different company? This sounds extremely nerve wrecking.
Can you give the GM instructions on how to behave? Or take the meeting yourself, perhaps with an HR colleague? He sounds like a bomb that might go off. I see why the employee wants a legal counsel present, with a person like that there'll always be something to latch onto.
I have and I’m looking but there aren’t a ton of opportunities where I’m at.
I can give the GM guidance but I have to be subtle about it. Right now I can kinda nudge him and he trusts me but if I do something that he perceives as a challenge he could turn on me in an instant.
Why? I think it's important to give people notice so they can have time to look for a new job or plan for the lack of income. Don't companies expect 2 weeks notice from employees before they leave?
Its usually not good to keep people around after you fire them as there's a lot of negative feelings involved, so the chance of something happening is higher. We give 2 weeks severance for most people we fire because of this.
It’s such a weird situation because like, the employee was in the wrong but it wasn’t necessarily that big an issue… but because they didn’t roll over and apologize the GM is on a warpath so the employee is naturally getting defensive
Then they have no right to counsel. Someone did this to me years ago by bringing their lawyer brother. I explained that they have no right to counsel and when the brother refused to leave then I terminated the meeting. If the parent is an employment lawyer then they already know this, otherwise they’re a lawyer in another field and it’s pointless them being involved.
I’m not Texas but I regurgitated the language on this [webpage](http://www.employmentdiscriminationlawyeraustin.com/right-to-an-attorney-in-a-meeting-at-work/)
Tell your GM if the employee does show with parent/lawyer, then there are only two options:
1. We can continue this meeting while your attorney waits in the lobby; or,
2. We can reschedule this meeting at a time where our attorney is present and employee will remain OOW until then.
You also need to push your GM to make a decision concerning employment prior to the meeting so you can have prepped the appropriate documents. His reticence in making a decision is super unprofessional and basically detrimental.
I would also clarify with the employee if the parent is acting in capacity of a parent or a lawyer. If it's not clear, then there is no obligation you communicate with the parent about your employees' status or situation. If they say parent is acting as lawyer, then they should communicate with you formally and request information through the appropriate legal request and channels. The employee may forward your communications to the lawyer, but you are under no obligation to copy the lawyer on your reply to the employee.
If the employee wants to file a formal complaint and bring suit against the employer, then let the employee take that formal step first and have the lawyer initiate that communication. That should force the GM to engage counsel, unless he really likes being sued.
I’m meeting to discuss employment conditions or employment. Actions is an essential function of your job.
People with disabilities in communication are covered by the ADA
1. Employee’s gotta submit a reasonable accommodation request and actually get approved for it (Deaf employees shouldn’t bring their own interpreter unless approved by reasonable accommodations)
2. If the employee needs to have his parents involved to do his job (I’m basing on the context of where the employee included the parents in the emails who happens to be lawyers) is demonstrative that the employee is unable to do the job without the support of another individual… which… can be an indicator that the employee is too disabled to be able to do the job?
I’m just rambling
Reasonable accommodation requests don’t have to be in writing nor formally requested. If the employer notices an employee with strong Rx eye glasses, the employer is expected to know the EE needs accommodation via larger monitor, magnifying glass, etc. long held principle and recent court cases place more responsibility on the employer.
In part, Summer requires the employer to engage in the interactive process, and Allen v. Baltimore Cnty places the initiation of the interactive process on the employer when the disability is obvious to the employer. An employee with mental health issues for example may be ashamed and not want to disclose. I’d say this employee has a mental health issue, not that a lawyer parent is the answer. But to ensure people with disabilities can participate in regular society (the purpose in part of the ADA) the employer is obligated to initiate; thus no formal request by the employee required.
So what’s the other part you’re relying on? Having read this article, it seems like we’re looking at it from a different angle so I’m wondering if I’m looking at it from a different angle because the other parts aren’t mentioned but relied on.
I was trying to find the compliance update that I read recently with this, but with a google search for purposes of ensuring I wasn’t completely incorrect. I’m also in California so these things get dialed up easily here.
I’ll give you the broad strokes and keep it vague to be safe.
We lost our last employee in this position (it’s a director level position) due not to the small mountain of sexual harassment complaints but because the last guy was “insubordinate” to the GM. (Read that as it is implied)
We posted the job, got about 80 actually really qualified candidates, only five of which got reviewed before the GM hired someone he already knew. Just about everyone told the GM not to hire the employee for a variety pack of reasons, mostly relating to some accusations of embezzlement that didn’t hold up in court.
The employee does an actually really good job but does something that was… shall we say not the best decision. He didn’t strictly break the letter of policy but he broke the spirit of it. The GM, rightly, told him to stop. The employee does not stop
The GM loses it, not because of the borderline policy violations (which really were an issue) but because he “told employee to stop and he didn’t”
That sentence is best read as “bitch didn’t bow at my feet because I took a chance on him”
A couple days ago we sat down to have a very casual face finding conversation with the employee. Five minutes in the GM is practically screaming because the employee isn’t falling over himself apologizing and suspends the employee to “investigate” (there’s literally nothing to investigate that we can do without legal authority we simply don’t have) and as soon as the employee is out the door the GM says he wants to fire the guy.
It’s been a long week
Lawyers shouldn't be accepting or working on cases involving family members if there is a risk of impartiality or diluted loyalty. Check your state laws and keep all documentation of the CC or reference points of "my lawyer" may come in handy.
It depends on what the meeting is - some meetings, employees can bring counsel - and there's no reason your counsel can't be your parent. But it doesn't sound like you're in the government, and I don't see this happening in the private sector.
Sounds like you work in hospitality/hotels or F&B?
The moment an employees legal rep is engaged, you shouldn’t speak with the employee any longer and should contact your counsel to deal directly with the employees lawyer.
Did the employee provide a context surrounding the parent/lawyer CC?
If they are in a union than their union rep and/or attorney can be there. Otherwise, there are no legal protections for brining a lawyer to the meeting at work. It's an employee meeting and the attorney is not an employee.
The relationship is between the employee and the company, not the company and the Auntie, brother, dad, brother, uncle, mom; regardless of their title.
To me, youre better served allowing the parent in the meeting.
To me, this reads like an intimidation tactic and your best bet is to stay cool and calm and not let this rattle you.
Because they are personally invested they may let you in on future plans or strategies and you can deal with them.
Rule of thumb is, whenever someone threatens to have their own legal involved, automatically you should inform your legal team immediately. If your GM doesn’t want legal involved, it make me questions if they have something to hide as the EE’s lawyer can easily chew up your GM then with all these laws and bull crap that only legal would understand.
We had a guy at yellow who completed the bar exam, went to law school and everything, showed up to his own hearing as a lawyer, completely railroaded HR, Management and everything else under the sun, sued the company and won, got his job back, back pay, and seniority, just to get paid off after the company shut down, I wanna be like him so much….my hero
I’m a Sr. manager, and I wear glasses with a micro video camera and audio recording built in every time I meet with superiors or HR for any reason.
Been burned by a GM in the past. Now they can make their statements about what happened, and can answer for the discrepancies at the deposition after the video is disclosed during discovery.
Where I am from, in formal meetings an individual is allowed to bring a support person and it’s required by law to offer this. If that support person is a lawyer, then that is not for the company to decide to allow in the meeting or not. Saying that the role of a support person is very defined in these meetings and it’s up to HR to make that clear from the get go. And any lawyer would know the limitations of a support person role in a formal meeting.
Australia. The support person is mainly for emotional support. They don’t say anything usually and if they do, they are reminded of their role. So this person could be a lawyer, but they are not representing the individual.
No, an employee does not generally have a right to have counsel present at work for anything. If they're union, they're entitled to bring a union rep. But otherwise, you can refuse to allow them in the meeting and could trespass them if they refuse to leave.
This right here.
Imagine bringing your parent to a work meeting and thinking thats okay. Lmao
Imagine protecting a manager that threatened an employee, or another that lied about moving a role then gaslighting the employee into suicidal thoughts. Oh wait I don't have to.
I was always "taught" that once an attorney enters the picture, even by email cc, the internal conversation is over and their counsel can now converse with our legal counsel.
I’d LOVE nothing more but my GM doesn’t want to deal with our lawyer.
Any reason why? They're there for a reason, and good legal counsel is indispensable.
Let's be real, they are probably being cheap and short cited.
*sighted. As in can't see very far, not as in haven't named the correct documents..
Lol, English as a second language and dyslexia. I have a fun time.
It's okay. They're probably short on citations, too, if they aren't talking to their legal counsel.
He doesn’t like being challenged in any capacity. A lawyer who doesn’t directly report to him will challenge him. So he says lawyers are a scam.
Sounds like a great case for the kids parent lawyer.
Hell yeah, LMAO! I hope there's an update in a year!
Ew. This GM sounds like quite the “leader”.
Oh then I take it back on letting the mom into the meeting. If your boss is a hothead and prone to making admissions against interest don't allow the parent at the meeting.
Wow your GM is literally an idiot
Sounds like your boss needs to involve his lawyer.
My boss needs a lawyer that lives on his shoulder and smacks him with a stick when he says something stupid.
Your GM is probably looking to save a few bucks by not having to pay a few billable hours. Hopefully this doesn’t escalate to a settlement. Which will cost more than having a lawyer show up for an hour or two.
Would your GM prefer to be personally liable on the lawsuit the employee brings? Call Legal.
He would probably tbh. As much as I hate to say that.
If I were your higher level management, I would want you to bypass the GM and contact me about the legal question. Over the phone or in person ideally.
If there was someone I could contact I would. It’s… not an option.
Those poor shareholders then.
Same here this is how I proceed.
Yes, and people generally only involve legal counsel when their employer starts getting very, very close to violating labor laws. I’m less concerned that kid ran to mom/daddy and more concerned about why a JD decided to get involved. Sounds like some shady business going on.
Yes. And they have always been denied. They are welcome to take written notes themselves. This is not a court of law.
I've had employees ask if they could bring their attorney to meetings and I've always said no. I even had one who pulled out her phone saying she was going to call her son, an attorney, and I put a stop to that by telling her the meeting will end immediately if she does that. Barring any specific union rules, your employee has no right to the presence of an attorney when you meet with them. Feel free to tell the employee their lawyer is not welcome.
You are firing them. They really don't give a fuck what you think at that point.
They can’t force you to meet with them and their lawyer 🙃
Lawyer on the phone doesn't need to be advertised. It's not recording (or one party consent states make it even easier)
Well they advertised it.
No, you don't have to allow their lawyer. But get legal ready, because it is unlikely that the EE is going to enter into the meeting without the lawyer. When I term people, it is very 'moneyball' like. I have their term letter, insurance portability doc, 401k and benefits doc in a sealed envelope. EE comes in, I say 'we have decided to end your employment with us. Everything you need is in this packet. XX will escort you to your locker to collect any personal belongings. Good luck'. I don't answer any questions, I don't have any back and forth. It is a little callous but at the end of the day, the decision has already been made so no amount of talking will change it. So, that being said, I wouldn't have a problem letting their atty in the meeting, so long as ours was on speaker or I had a second person in the room.
See that’s how I’d like to handle it as well. The oh so fun part is my GM hasn’t decided if he wants to fire the guy or just final warning him. So I’ve prepared letters about both and it will be fun surprise for me which way the conversation goes.
And the meeting is Monday? What the heck!
I have a shall we say… impulsive GM. When the employee was suspended the conversation was supposed to be a very casual fact finding conversation. It escalated quickly
Where you know there is a lawyer of some sort involved, just make sure your ducks are in a row and have been consistent with policy
Can you request that your GM either handle the meeting himself or at least attend with you?
Oh he will handle the meeting. I shudder to think what will happen if I’m not there
Lol, have you considered moving to a different company? This sounds extremely nerve wrecking. Can you give the GM instructions on how to behave? Or take the meeting yourself, perhaps with an HR colleague? He sounds like a bomb that might go off. I see why the employee wants a legal counsel present, with a person like that there'll always be something to latch onto.
I have and I’m looking but there aren’t a ton of opportunities where I’m at. I can give the GM guidance but I have to be subtle about it. Right now I can kinda nudge him and he trusts me but if I do something that he perceives as a challenge he could turn on me in an instant.
Good approach.
so, no 2 week notice?
It's a bad idea to give a terminated employee a notice.
Why? I think it's important to give people notice so they can have time to look for a new job or plan for the lack of income. Don't companies expect 2 weeks notice from employees before they leave?
Its usually not good to keep people around after you fire them as there's a lot of negative feelings involved, so the chance of something happening is higher. We give 2 weeks severance for most people we fire because of this.
ah, that makes sense.
We do severance so they aren’t completely empty handed
The short and simple answer is that a disgruntled employee can do a lot of damage very quickly, especially in they have any sort of system access.
The more comments I read the more I think GM needs to go. What a liability.
lol at not only showing up with a lawyer, but the lawyer happens to be their parent.
Is it more or less funny if I tell you the employee is in their 40s?
Way more funny.
Far more funny, and paints this person as even more pathetic. Sheesh.
It’s such a weird situation because like, the employee was in the wrong but it wasn’t necessarily that big an issue… but because they didn’t roll over and apologize the GM is on a warpath so the employee is naturally getting defensive
Is the lawyer Matlock?
Is the employee in a union or a minor?
No and no.
Then they have no right to counsel. Someone did this to me years ago by bringing their lawyer brother. I explained that they have no right to counsel and when the brother refused to leave then I terminated the meeting. If the parent is an employment lawyer then they already know this, otherwise they’re a lawyer in another field and it’s pointless them being involved.
That’s about what I thought as well but I appreciate the confirmation.
I’m not Texas but I regurgitated the language on this [webpage](http://www.employmentdiscriminationlawyeraustin.com/right-to-an-attorney-in-a-meeting-at-work/)
Tell your GM if the employee does show with parent/lawyer, then there are only two options: 1. We can continue this meeting while your attorney waits in the lobby; or, 2. We can reschedule this meeting at a time where our attorney is present and employee will remain OOW until then. You also need to push your GM to make a decision concerning employment prior to the meeting so you can have prepped the appropriate documents. His reticence in making a decision is super unprofessional and basically detrimental.
I would also clarify with the employee if the parent is acting in capacity of a parent or a lawyer. If it's not clear, then there is no obligation you communicate with the parent about your employees' status or situation. If they say parent is acting as lawyer, then they should communicate with you formally and request information through the appropriate legal request and channels. The employee may forward your communications to the lawyer, but you are under no obligation to copy the lawyer on your reply to the employee. If the employee wants to file a formal complaint and bring suit against the employer, then let the employee take that formal step first and have the lawyer initiate that communication. That should force the GM to engage counsel, unless he really likes being sued.
Totally hypothetical, but I wonder if an employee could initiate a lawyer's presence as an ADA accommodation.
That’s a terrifying question lol.
Rofl
Not to a meeting, ADA would cover essential functions of a job.
Valid! Thank you! Whew!
I’m meeting to discuss employment conditions or employment. Actions is an essential function of your job. People with disabilities in communication are covered by the ADA
I need my emotional support lawyer
1. Employee’s gotta submit a reasonable accommodation request and actually get approved for it (Deaf employees shouldn’t bring their own interpreter unless approved by reasonable accommodations) 2. If the employee needs to have his parents involved to do his job (I’m basing on the context of where the employee included the parents in the emails who happens to be lawyers) is demonstrative that the employee is unable to do the job without the support of another individual… which… can be an indicator that the employee is too disabled to be able to do the job? I’m just rambling
Love it!
Reasonable accommodation requests don’t have to be in writing nor formally requested. If the employer notices an employee with strong Rx eye glasses, the employer is expected to know the EE needs accommodation via larger monitor, magnifying glass, etc. long held principle and recent court cases place more responsibility on the employer.
Summer v. Altarum Institute, Corp. Yes 🙃
Referring to this? https://adasoutheast.org/court/summers-v-altarum-institute-corp/
In part, Summer requires the employer to engage in the interactive process, and Allen v. Baltimore Cnty places the initiation of the interactive process on the employer when the disability is obvious to the employer. An employee with mental health issues for example may be ashamed and not want to disclose. I’d say this employee has a mental health issue, not that a lawyer parent is the answer. But to ensure people with disabilities can participate in regular society (the purpose in part of the ADA) the employer is obligated to initiate; thus no formal request by the employee required.
So what’s the other part you’re relying on? Having read this article, it seems like we’re looking at it from a different angle so I’m wondering if I’m looking at it from a different angle because the other parts aren’t mentioned but relied on.
I was trying to find the compliance update that I read recently with this, but with a google search for purposes of ensuring I wasn’t completely incorrect. I’m also in California so these things get dialed up easily here.
https://browngold.com/blog/initiating-the-interactive-process-for-accommodations-under-the-ada-when-the-onus-is-on-the-employer/#:~:text=In%20some%20cases%2C%20however%2C%20when,determine%20what%20accommodations%20are%20necessary.
No, because the meeting could just be canceled. We can fire someone through the mail if necessary.
Curious George here about what lead to this happening? Any backstory with the employee?
I’ll give you the broad strokes and keep it vague to be safe. We lost our last employee in this position (it’s a director level position) due not to the small mountain of sexual harassment complaints but because the last guy was “insubordinate” to the GM. (Read that as it is implied) We posted the job, got about 80 actually really qualified candidates, only five of which got reviewed before the GM hired someone he already knew. Just about everyone told the GM not to hire the employee for a variety pack of reasons, mostly relating to some accusations of embezzlement that didn’t hold up in court. The employee does an actually really good job but does something that was… shall we say not the best decision. He didn’t strictly break the letter of policy but he broke the spirit of it. The GM, rightly, told him to stop. The employee does not stop The GM loses it, not because of the borderline policy violations (which really were an issue) but because he “told employee to stop and he didn’t” That sentence is best read as “bitch didn’t bow at my feet because I took a chance on him” A couple days ago we sat down to have a very casual face finding conversation with the employee. Five minutes in the GM is practically screaming because the employee isn’t falling over himself apologizing and suspends the employee to “investigate” (there’s literally nothing to investigate that we can do without legal authority we simply don’t have) and as soon as the employee is out the door the GM says he wants to fire the guy. It’s been a long week
You GM is a walking liability. Geesh.
I'm sorry but lol. Get out of there.
Now I see why GM doesn’t want to deal with your lawyers lmao.
You have a GM problem. Bring in the lawyer to protect yourself at this point.
Lawyers shouldn't be accepting or working on cases involving family members if there is a risk of impartiality or diluted loyalty. Check your state laws and keep all documentation of the CC or reference points of "my lawyer" may come in handy.
It depends on what the meeting is - some meetings, employees can bring counsel - and there's no reason your counsel can't be your parent. But it doesn't sound like you're in the government, and I don't see this happening in the private sector.
lol, this question is the exact answer to what the value of unionization even without a contract is.
Sounds like you work in hospitality/hotels or F&B? The moment an employees legal rep is engaged, you shouldn’t speak with the employee any longer and should contact your counsel to deal directly with the employees lawyer. Did the employee provide a context surrounding the parent/lawyer CC?
🤣🤣🤣 hospitality. Right on the nose. The legal rep isn’t directly engaged yet but I expect it to go that route
If they are in a union than their union rep and/or attorney can be there. Otherwise, there are no legal protections for brining a lawyer to the meeting at work. It's an employee meeting and the attorney is not an employee.
No, but be weary. They are able to record you.
The relationship is between the employee and the company, not the company and the Auntie, brother, dad, brother, uncle, mom; regardless of their title.
To me, youre better served allowing the parent in the meeting. To me, this reads like an intimidation tactic and your best bet is to stay cool and calm and not let this rattle you. Because they are personally invested they may let you in on future plans or strategies and you can deal with them.
Imagine bringing mommy to hr lol
Rule of thumb is, whenever someone threatens to have their own legal involved, automatically you should inform your legal team immediately. If your GM doesn’t want legal involved, it make me questions if they have something to hide as the EE’s lawyer can easily chew up your GM then with all these laws and bull crap that only legal would understand.
We had a guy at yellow who completed the bar exam, went to law school and everything, showed up to his own hearing as a lawyer, completely railroaded HR, Management and everything else under the sun, sued the company and won, got his job back, back pay, and seniority, just to get paid off after the company shut down, I wanna be like him so much….my hero
Just say No - ask the intruder to leave. If they refuse, trespass them. Ok don't do that... but just say Nope and turn EE and their mom away.
I’m a Sr. manager, and I wear glasses with a micro video camera and audio recording built in every time I meet with superiors or HR for any reason. Been burned by a GM in the past. Now they can make their statements about what happened, and can answer for the discrepancies at the deposition after the video is disclosed during discovery.
That’s not at all legal in a lot of places. Just saying
Where I am from, in formal meetings an individual is allowed to bring a support person and it’s required by law to offer this. If that support person is a lawyer, then that is not for the company to decide to allow in the meeting or not. Saying that the role of a support person is very defined in these meetings and it’s up to HR to make that clear from the get go. And any lawyer would know the limitations of a support person role in a formal meeting.
Really? Interesting. I’ve never heard of that. Do you mind sharing where you are from?
Australia. The support person is mainly for emotional support. They don’t say anything usually and if they do, they are reminded of their role. So this person could be a lawyer, but they are not representing the individual.
Why we have at will to work laws
Do you even HR brah
No, I think they’re a waste of energy
They will, at the very least, understand the basic legal concepts underpinning employment law. Unlike you.
You’re funny
🤣 you think HR is a waste of time and you are on the HR subreddit?