Fired Apple employee claims Jobs promised him job security, files wrongful termination suit - Page 2

 

This is some astonishingly bad reasoning here.  Employers are generally institutions/businesses, not individuals and therein lies the difference.

 

 There are always more "bad employers" than there are "bad employees" because the employer is a business.  Businesses don't have feelings and they don't operate morally, they operate based on self-intrest.  Employers are not hardly ever "people too."  Their interests are strictly financial, or about the goals of the business as a whole.  You also can't compare numbers in the way you have as they are two different categories of things.  

 

There are indeed a lot of bad employees out there, probably more so today than ever before, but it's far more likely that any given employee was wrongfully terminated than it is that the employee was some kind of evil monster and the business had to get rid of him/her.  

 

I'm with drblank, in that it seems like most of the time a suit like this will have merit.  Other than pure greed why would an employee go to the extreme lengths of taking the former employer to court (an expensive and difficult process) unless they felt themselves to be on the side of right?  

Very good point. This is a lawsuit so the lawyer isn't about to say anything that could make Apple sound like okay folks that made a little boo boo

After Steve, everyone will seem lackluster, and no spinning and dancing keynote or earth shattering new products will change that. Cooks personality is just not the same and we had years of Steve ingrained in us

Wayne Goodrich is available?

The guy already looks dead in the water now it is in the open. The machine will already be kicking in.

 

iFixed it for you dept:

 

What would you do, NeXT?

 

...or...

 

What would you do?  NeXT!

 IANAL, but I believe this essentially correct, and California is an At Will state, however a wrongful termination suit can still be brought upon a company. The burden of proof is on the employee however to show that the company was attempting to terminate illegally or unjustly. California does not have an Implied Contract clause where if your boss states he/she'll never fire you, so I'll be surprised if the "Steve said I could still work here forever" stands up, even if he has witnesses.  It may go to support evidence  that someone else had it in for him though.

 

The article doesn't say whether he was offered severance. I imagine he was forced to turn it down, as usually you have to sign away your right to sue if you take severance.

 

As for his stock, they guy deserves to be fairly compensated. I believe in restricted stock grants there are always clear terms on what happens when you're terminated. I've seen it where they vest early upon  termination before. Perhaps Apple's terms say they are forfeit.

 

Sucks to be this guy.

Edited by huntercr - 8/21/12 at 11:09am

*Nobody* can expect job security.

But Apple should make good on the stock deal.

Getting fired and not getting vested stock options is bad business practices. Without a "VALID" reason is hiding behind some other reason that might not be legal.  California has various laws to protect people's rights.

 

There are laws in the State and Federal level that does protect the employee.

 

When a company has nothing documented to give a valid reason to prevent someone from obtaining vested stock options, that is just wrong.  I still have yet to meet a legal council representing a corporation that was honest in every aspect of how they conduct business.  If they have a legitimate reason and it's documented to fire someone, then it should be documented.

 

NO ONE wants to be fired preventing them from obtaining their vested stock options, because that's partly why they want to work and partly how companies attract people to work for the company.

 

When someone at his level gets fired and there is no just cause, it prevents him from getting employment.

I don't know the facts of this case other that what's being said in the article, which isn't detailed enough, but apparently he is willing to go public, so there usually is merit.

 

If they just didn't want him there anymore, there are ways to excuse him from his position to where he isn't left without being able to get employment, vested stock options and for him to be able t move on with his life.

 

Most companies aren't looking out for their employees.  They may say they are, but in reality, they aren't.  It's a shame people have to be put in this position in the first place where they have to get an attorney involved.

 

Treat employees how you want to be treated if the tables are turned, that's the best advice I could give to ANYONE that is a position to hire or fire someone.    Generic business letters are written in  such a way, where it is usually an excuse for attorneys that don't have a conscious.

 

Personally, if someone says, they weren't working out well, I would like to see some hard evidence as real examples of HOW they weren't working out with detailed accounting of actual scenarios, rather than hiding behind corporate rhetoric.

Back in the old days, companies used to have NO LAY OFF policies.  Those days are gone because of bad management practices.  Most members of upper management just want a bunch of "YES" men/woman, even though they make some STUPID decisions.  It, unfortunately, happens to MOST companies.

 

If you don't breed good employment practices, and are not loyal to your employees, then your employees won't be loyal in return.

 

it's hard because Apple users tend to LOVE their computers and don't want to switch because of it, but what's WORSE, is bad business decisions from attorneys and various people in upper management damage that experience.  We don't want the management of a product we love to be idiots.  We want and kind of expect them to be better than that.

I guess Apple users want the company to have good business practices and to treat employees the way they should, with fairness, honesty, integrity and loyalty.  Treat employees, customers the way YOU want to be treated.  If Apple's Head council, Head of HR, and the rest of upper management can't practice the highest level of integrity with how they treat people, then they should resign.

 

Good business practices breeds respect.  PERIOD.

 

Exactly.  Moreover, many/most companies have a specific policy that says verbal statements and the like shall not be considered contracts and have no enforceable meaning.  If would expect that Apple can show that clause in their policy library and have evidence that he was aware of it.  If Apple didn't do those things, they could be on the hook financially to some degree.

 

I think it's very possible that SJ said "I'll take care of you" and meant it, but a) didn't formally do anything about it and/or b) wasn't legally obligating Apple to anything (because, as I said above, he might not be permitted to do so verbally).  In that case, sucks to be that guy, but I don't see how it's Apple's problem.  Apple probably has hundreds of openings, so the fact that they didn't just slot him into one says more about him than about Apple, in my opinion.

At bare minimum.  Personally, they could have treated this guy differently.  If they no longer wanted his services and it was hard to prove what he claims Steve told him, then they should have thought about why do they want to get rid of him if he has been with Apple for so long and been a part of Steve's keynote presentations.  Something isn't adding up.

 

I don't know what the big deal is.  If they don't need his services helping with Presentations, etc., I'm sure there are other things within the company he could certainly do.  Unless they can justify in his mind why the termination, then they could have easily given him some time.

 

It's tough to be told one day from the FOUNDER, CEO of the company that you will have a job with the company for life and they pass away, and then he finds himself in this position.  Personally, I don't think that he is lying.  And I don't see a valid reason to prevent him from obtaining his stock.

 

I guess I would like a valid, understandable reason, why they did this in the first place rather than some insensitive corporate rhetoric.  Most people can't get over that, it causes a LOT of emotional damage and pain and suffering because of attorney's and others with no conscious.

 

We have few details, but he doesn't appear to be alleging any discrimination.  So where would be "merit" of his case come from?  I expect it's entirely based on this perception that SJ made a legally enforceable agreement by saying he's take care of him.  The fact that he and his lawyer believe that is reason enough for them to sue, but it's a long way from winning the case or even being right.  As a manager, I've been involved in the termination of a small number of people over the years and almost always comes down to being convinced that the employee's performance is well below the standard we expect and can readily be replaced in the market.  Yeah, it sucks to have to do that, but it's the right and necessary thing to do.  If Apple didn't need a "presentation adviser/editor" and couldn't find another good fit for him, then he should have been let go--with appropriate compensation.

 

If I had to bet, I would expect that this will settle quietly and he'll get a nice payoff for him and his lawyer.  Which answers the question of "why would anyone sue an employer"?  Because the vast majority of these cases never get to court and employers can be quick to write checks to make them go away as the cost of doing business.

SOL ; LOL  ...ya while he was in good health... BTW tim cook is now the head honcho; SO if Tim Cook wants him around... he stays; otherwise he's SOL.

 

Dead Men (the late Steve Jobs) can not talk...

 

did steve jobs say "i'll take care of you".. or "i'll take care of it (meaning the lun ch bill)" LOL

I was thinking along the same lines.  But REALITY is that Apple is partly STEVE JOBS way of giving presentations and his authentic passion for Apple.  Tim has never been the best presenter in the world. Some people just give boring presentations, but getting rid of someone that could help TIm give better presentations is kind of silly and childish.

 

Personally, I would LOVE to get advice from Steve's right hand man when it comes to presentations.  I've given presentations before and I know that it takes a while to get the knack for it.

 

Tim hasn't done many presentations and he, from MY perspective, NEEDS WORK.  It's not that he is a bad person by not giving great Jobs style presentations, but Apple users want and kind of expect to have a presentation from someone that is truly enthusiastic and gives the style that we have grown accustomed to.  Some of the best parts of Steve's presentations were when he was just himself.  Even when he made a mistake.  It's part of being HUMAN.

 

I think if Tim got to the point and understood he needs help in that area and he has someone that is actually willing to be there to help him, then he needs to drop his attitude and use this person. He can't get anyone better, if that is in fact the root of this issue.

 

But, ultimately Cook has to LEARN how to give a presentation.

 

Personally, I like Ives presentations.  He's got his own sense of style for it.

 

I'm sure firing this guy doesn't solve anything and I'm sure he could have been treated a little better with more respect because of his long time relationship with Steve.

It's too bad I am not involved with their little differences, because I am all about working through the issues and having people get to a mutually agreeable terms whether the guy stays or leaves.

 

From my point of view, Cook does need help to get that Jobs passion.  Cook is great at managing certain aspects of the company, so I still give him high marks in some areas, some areas I think he needs some work.

It is a shame stuff like this happens, but no one evolves when people getting treated like a pair of worn underwear.

I doubt that Apple would let him go to deny him these stock options. My guess is that he was let go because he was no longer needed. However, this guy is likely justifiably upset. He had some restricted options that would have been worth a lot of money but are no longer good because he is no longer with Apple. This will probably be quickly settled out of court.

 

Do you mean his bits in the executive product videos? He has never been on stage.

 

See, Steve knew exactly what he was doing when he stepped down. He knew exactly what he was doing when he brought NeXT people to Apple. He knew he was an exceptional person, and he knew that he'd never find a singular replacement for himself.

 

So he grabbed the people he saw best sync with his vision and his mindset and trained them to be even more like him. And so we have the Apple leadership set forth today, each with their own forte.

 

Cook: Operations. Getting things done efficiently, economically, and swiftly.

Ive: Design. The spark that Steve had, whether it be the size of a chamfer, the material used, or the look and feel of the product as a whole.

Forstall: Code. Plus insanity. If the articles are true, Steve saw in Scott the same mania that he had at early Apple.

Schiller: Sales. This might've been Steve's hardest task, getting Phil to be able to sell products the way Steve did. There's no doubt that he's able to emulate Steve, but I don't think Phil has his own RDF just yet. And I can say that because I have one of my own and can actually tell these things. 

Serlet: Code. Shame he left, though. My biggest concern with Apple's current leadership (aside from the idiot retail guy) is that they never put up a replacement OS X VP… 

 

These people were hand picked and trained by Steve to not only do everything at which he was a master, but to do things he knew he never could nor cared to (specifically code). But Steve saw in them the same spark he had in his areas of expertise. 

Nothing worse than being a passionate Apple employee or customer and not treated with respect by the company they love.  One thing I have noticed over the years.  TRUE Apple enthusiasts are passionate.  Gotta have that.  

 

I've seen good hires and bad hires at Apple, but the good hires are the ones that REALLY dig the products and want to improve what Apple is all about and to fix things that need to be fixed, improve things that need to be improved and to continue the Jobs passion.  Gotta have that.

 

Obviously, he proved himself with Steve after having worked with him on those presentations.  Tim needs to get the passion and this guy is the guy, unless there is something else people are covering up.

It depends.  If he was making an average salary and didn't yet have stock, I agree with you.   But if he's already a multi-millionaire and he has nothing in writing and no witnesses to Jobs' supposed promise to him, then he should move on.   If he's as skilled as implied, I'm sure another company would love to have him.

 

The question is why doesn't Apple still want him?    They still do presentations at launches.     Is it that he was too close to Jobs?   Is he hard to work with?  

 

Years ago, I was trying to convince my CEO to let me head a new department.  One late night, he told me we were going to go ahead.   The next day, he was fired.   I went to the new CEO and he told me that they weren't promoting anyone based on what a lame-duck CEO wanted to do (even though he didn't know he was lame-duck at the time.)    Nothing I could do.   I suppose I could have sued, but with no witnesses and nothing in writing, I think I would have gotten nowhere.    So I simply sucked it up and moved on.

I think Ives has the passion for giving presentations based on how he presents himself in the videos.   He sometimes comes off a little intense, but i can tell he is passionate about his and his staff's contribution.  

 

It's hard replacing Steve when it comes to presentations.

 

Having been in the computer industry, it was fresh air listening to Steve.  He brought an honest sense of humor.

 

I've seen presentations from most of the major computer hardware/software corporations and most of them were boring conservative people that were so uptight, it didn't get the audience enthused about the product.

 

Tim came from a conservative background.  It kind of like teaching a ultra conservative person with no rhythm how to dance to a funk song. Maybe that's the problem.

 

Either way, not giving this guy his stock and not giving him the opportunity to help Tim get his sense of style isn't right.  Not giving him the opportunity to work in other areas of Apple isn't right either. Unless they have some other legitimate reason, they should figure out a way to work things out without having to drag it through the court system.

 

This guy is OBVIOUSLY a passionate Apple employee and nothing worse than firing one for something that couldn't be worked out to a mutually agreeable terms.

 

That seems very unlikely, considering that Tim Cook has been doing everything he possibly could to channel Steve Jobs during his two keynotes thus far, including keeping the same exact slide presentation style.

I hope so. Personally, if it is worked out without having to go to trial, then Apple needs to be more careful with how they deal with this stuff.  People want to work, people want to work for their favorite company.  Just because the founder passes doesn't mean you get rid of the people because of some personal differences.

 

Corporations need to breed more compassion towards situations involving other individuals.  Whether an employee or a customer.  Hiding behind corporate/legalese is just being a chicken.

Aw hell, I'm jealous that there are people making enough money that they can even find a lawyer willing to take a wrongful termination case at all. I was harassed out of my job and then out of the institution/employment and not one legal or union entity did a thing to stop it or compensate me for the abuse. I played by their rules because that's all there is. I lost because I'm not wealthy and I'm unwilling to play dirty (frankly, I'm unable to; so yay to all the evolutionary superiority of sociopaths in corporate America where they thrive and are rewarded). On top of that, the employer was my state government, so I feel screwed by my own government. I spent my retirement fund just getting through the days till I could file for disability (ptsd caused by abuse by my employer). Lawyer to fight my case? Right. Not.

So now republicans and libertarians can blast me with leeching off tax dollars. Hey never had to put me in this situation to begin with. I liked my work, I did it well and my clients liked me. It was all about an immediate manager who has psychiatric issues. I gave more than an employee should be required to in order to accommodate a sociopath's irrational and unreasonable behavior. Yet, here I am, the social pariah, while the sociopath still comfortably works there because management always sides with management (and fellow sociopaths).

Does this guy have a case? Probably. I've only seen a couple examples of legit termination with just cause (& knowing the work performance of the employee, i could appreciate the termination). Those were minimum wage, teenage or other labor/soft labor jobs where the employee turnover is high because the job slot itself is unvalued by employer and employee. Call centers, tech support, retail, etc. Professionals that aren't managers tend to just get shafted outright by policy or managers and the managerial hierarchy above them. Why listen to an employee's complaints when you're upper management? That's middle management's job. Oh, middle manager is the complaint? Sorry, policy says we don't believe in managerial deficiency. Every case of managerial level incompetence I've ever seen is rewarded with continued employment or golden parachute while the guy makes a lateral move to somewhere else he'll screw up.

Companies are not people. They're antisocial collectives of institutional thinking. Everywhere I've worked it's been the same: employer takes advantage of employees and customers until employees are so fed up that they leave or are forced out with passive-aggressive abuse tactics that cannot easily be documented by the victim. Until capitalism adopts some ethics, it will always be this way (& I think it's getting worse; all the employee social protections have been successfully worked around by social engineering tactics in HR departments and new language/law is needed to cover what existing law utterly fails to address).

what is odd is that he was with apple for a long time and magically lost his job after steve died. we all know steve didn't tolerate fools so i wouldn't just outright dismiss his claim.

i guess this guy wasn't involved in those stupid recent commercials apple put out. those made the MS Seinfeld ads look GOOD.

The ads are typically done by Ad agencies.

 

Some Apple employees are there just for the money and some aren't.   I don't think this guy was there for the money.  Obviously, he and Steve worked on the presentations and OBVIOUSLY he was an integral part of the success of those presentations and if there weren't any performance issues.  It sounds like a chicken way of dealing with someone that didn't have performance issues.

 

I don't take corporate rhetoric when it comes to handling an issue where individuals are involved. Because if there is a way to resolve things without resorting to termination.  Termination should only be used for documented situations where the employee was reprimanded and the employee had a chance to work with HR and the others involved to find out if it is fixable or not.  But to not have any tangible reasons to fire someone. I don't take the corporate attitude towards that treatment.

I just read an article in Silicon Valley news that mentioned that Apple didn't want to pay for the restricted stock he was supposed to be awarded, so instead of paying for the stock he was promised, they fired him.  so it wasn't anything to do with his performance, it had to do with Apple paying for the restricted stock he was SUPPOSED to get.  If this is the case, HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO COMPLAIN.  He lost his job where job performance or not needing was the issue it had to do with stock he was entitled to.

They found out he was using "PowerPoint" for his first drafts.

 

Cheers

Really?! He should've known that there is no such thing as job security.

The REAL reason, according to Silicon Valley News, is that Apple didn't want to honor a contract (from what it sounds) for a specified amount of restricted shares that Apple had to pay $98 a share and give it to the employee for their contract.  You know some form of vested stocks that he had accrued.  So basically, instead of Apple buying the shares and giving to the employee, they figured it's just better to fire him, not grant him his vested stock options, and act like it's legal....  One of the possible reasons is that Jobs isn't around to keep this guy employed, and to save the company money is a typically bad quarter.

 

It's all about the money, and I guess that Apple's head counsel probably didn't seem to think that this behavior is worth suing over.  Well, guess again.  Someone in upper management should be ROLLED over this.

I am not sure what to make of this, I know that SJ was not known for being gracious to people who helped him over the years, but the firing took place after Steve was gone and the employee was valued enough to remain with apple for many years under steve so im inclined to believe that his argument has some merit.

 

But the article really is only telling his side of the story and knowing apple they won't likely share their side. I hope that the firing wasent done as a business manuver as claimed in the article but it would not surprise me if it was, this stuff happens in big corporations all over and as much as I like apple, they are a big corporation as well and not above this kind of thing.

 

If there was wrongful termination and evidence of a committment to his continued employment by SJ then I hope he gets what he is entitled to. The biggest thing here to me is not so much the conditions of the termination, more so the fact that a good and loyal contributor to Apple's success is no longer with the company, whether its legal or not its just sad.

 

He was an At Will employee.  Apple doesn't need just cause.  If there is no record of such a promise of continued employment, he's got nothing.  

 

 

 

 

Uh, 'this much money" has nothing to do with it.  People sue over such "promises" all the time.  If he didn't have a contract and/or records of such promises, he's screwed.  

If this is true then Apple should rehire this guy right away. If he was good enough for Steve Jobs he is certainly good enough for Apple Inc. The man's skills evident in the amazing keynotes should speak for themselves. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

 

Well put.

This guy is entitled to everything he can prove in a court of law, just like everyone else. No more, no less. Speculation will only echo your existing view of Apple.

Sounds like a dick move by Apple.  Curious to hear the other side.

Beware the "new" Apple.

Long Live Steve, wherever he is.

You see, the thing about Tribal Leadership is that Steve was a person that corralled the best talent. Some people think Steve is a genius because he "created wonderful stuff". But as far back as his time at NEXT (and the first Mac before that), it was clear Steve's greatest strength was people... Which is ironic because a lot of people think he is a dick. But Steve really was able to draw, and retain, the best employees in the world that did amazing, amazing stuff.

I am not sure Tim Cook is similar.

Like I said I feel Cook will do a good job but it will be a different Apple than under Steve. Then when Scott Forstall becomes CEO in maybe a decade, then we will see a new Apple.

There are many signs this decade's Apple will be different. Like I said I returned the MacBook Pro Retina, I am using my MBP 13" 2010 with a new Apple Cinema Display (DisplayPort) 27". I'd like to keep my iPhone 4S this year and not upgrade until next year if possible. Same for iPad.

One question... Is this a California/US thing where the term "fired" is used instead of "let go"? "Fired" usually means the employee did something wrong. "Let go" is usually used when the company decides they no longer need/want the employee. "Layoffs" and "Retrenchment" usually refers to say 10-1000 people losing their jobs at once.

Can someone clarify?

Not explicitly nowadays. But when Steve Jobs tells you, "you'll always have a job at Apple", most of the time, this is as good a guarantee in life as you'll ever get. Perhaps as long as you don't piss off Steve, but still, it's more of a guarantee than most people in life get.

If the stock was in an employment contract then they have to honor it.  The problem with these companies, Apple not the only one out there, many of these companies use every chance to screw the employee as they don't consider the employee rights, just the employer's rights because they figure most average employees not in upper management have a difficult time getting an attorney since in order to take a case to trial, they not only have to pay their bills, but have an extra $250K in their back pocket to pay for legal fees just to keep the case in court because the company will drag out the trail as long as they can.  It's really sad companies do this, let alone a wealthy company such as Apple.

 

It kind of makes me not want to do business with companies that do this, but unfortunately, I don't like switching from mfg to mfg every time i hear this kind of treatment.  I think that the people that are involved with this decision making, regardless of their title, should ALL pay out of their pocket for these settlements and the court should slap these people with fines and if the company's legal counsel advised this to the other decision makers that they are disbarred.  If the legal counsel advises a corporation to do something illegal against an employee just to save money, then they should not be allowed to practice the law.  I know that most employers that practice activities that are against the law, they figure that if they are slapped with fines, etc., that that's the cost of doing business.  In my book that's bad business practices and that's grounds for termination and possibly other things against those that try to prevent another from working. 

 

These At Will laws are probably in need of change.  I think that companies doing mass layoffs have to clear it through the State before they do it, because laying off employees just to "make more profit" is not a good business practice either.

 

Someone needs to a 20 lb book called the Golden Rules and smack these people in upper management over the head, so to speak, regarding how to treat employees and customers for that matter.

 

They also need to get some refresher courses in business ethics and proper management techniques just in case they forgot or never took them in the first place..

 

Certain hiring/firing practices are a sign of bad management and they take it out on employees and customers as a result..

 

I am losing respect for many people in upper management, and THAT is a shame. They forgot what it's like having to work to pay bills and hopefully be able to make extra for retirement.

Upper management typically only takes care of others in upper management because they like bullying the little guy around, because THEY ARE afraid of being told they don't know what they are doing.  It's the Good Ol Boys club all over again. 

 

Treating people the way they treat people doesn't breed respect or loyalty.

 

I certainly hope Tim Cook takes care of this situation and doesn't end up being another CEO that needs to leave.  It's hard enough getting CEOs that take care of their employees, customers, and do honest ethical business practices.

Well let's hope for the future of Apple that he (or the next CEO in waiting) is. Too often big corporations forget the most basic rule. Long before The Customer, the most important part of a company is its People. If you can identify and retain visionary, talented individuals, keep them happy, treat them with respect, keep them looking ahead instead of back over their shoulders waiting for the axe to fall, you'll remain a leader in your field. Anything less eventually leads to a culture of fear, loss of respect, an eventual brain drain, and spells the end of the game.