Can a worker be fired without a reason? Ask HR
| Special to USA TODAY
Johnny C. Taylor Jr. tackles your human resources questions as part of a series for USA TODAY. Taylor is president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management, the world's largest HR professional society and author of "Reset: A Leader's Guide to Work in an Age of Upheaval.'
Have a question? Submit it here.
Question: While I was working a seasonal job, I was fired just weeks before the term ended. However, my employer never gave me a reason for the termination. My former manager referred me to HR, but I never received a response to my inquiries there. Can I be fired without my employer giving me a reason for the termination? – Leo
Answer: I'm sorry to hear about your situation. Being terminated without an explanation can definitely feel frustrating and confusing. While the specifics can vary depending on your location and circumstances, here's some general guidance to help clarify your rights and options.
The answer largely depends on the laws in your state or country and the nature of your employment. Most states operate under an 'at-will' employment system. This means an employer can terminate your employment at any time, for any reason (or no reason), as long as it's not illegal (e.g., discrimination or retaliation). However, some states have laws requiring employers to provide an explanation for termination, either verbally or in writing, particularly in cases of involuntary termination.
Since your job was seasonal, the terms of your employment may have also been governed by a contract or agreement. If there were specific guidelines about duration or conditions for termination outlined in that contract, your employer should have followed them.
While employers may not always be legally required to provide a reason, it's considered best practice to do so. Communicating the reason for termination helps prevent confusion and disputes, demonstrating that the decision was thoughtful and fair. When an employer fails to provide a reason, it can understandably raise concerns.
If your former manager referred you to HR and you didn't get a response from them, it's worth taking additional steps to follow up. Here's what you can do:
◾ Contact HR again. Reach out via email or phone to reiterate your request for clarification. Be clear and professional in your communication.
◾ Check your employment documents. Review any offer letters, contracts, or employee handbooks you received when you started the job. These may provide information about termination policies and procedures.
◾ Document everything. Keep records of all communications with your former employer, including dates and times you contacted HR or other points of contact.
If you suspect the termination might have been discriminatory or in violation of employment law, you have a few options:
◾ Seek legal guidance. Consulting with an employment attorney can help you better understand your rights and the terms of your contract, especially if you believe the termination was unlawful.
◾ File a complaint. You may be able to do this through your state's labor department or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) if the termination violated employment laws.
While the situation may be disheartening, use it as an opportunity to reflect and move forward. If you're in the job market again, focus on highlighting your skills and experience from that seasonal role, as well as any lessons learned. Regardless of the circumstances, you can take the next step in your career with confidence.
Being proactive and informed about your rights is always a good move. If you need further guidance, don't hesitate to seek professional advice or resources in your area.
Wishing you the best in your next chapter!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Elon Musk tries to nuke Trump's GOP tax plan
Elon Musk tries to nuke Trump's GOP tax plan | The Excerpt On Thursday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: USA TODAY Senior Congress Reporter Riley Beggin has the latest after Elon Musk launched an attack on President Donald Trump's sweeping tax and policy bill. A new analysis finds nearly 11 million Americans would lose insurance under Trump's tax bill. Trump bans travel from twelve nations. The Education Department says Columbia University fails to meet accreditation standards. Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed retaliation against Ukraine during a call Wednesday. USA TODAY National Correspondent Elizabeth Weise tells us how a recent Ukraine drone attack shows familiar-looking drones can be terrifying weapons. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Taylor Wilson: Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson. Today is Thursday, June 5th, 2025. This is The Excerpt. Today, Elon Musk tries to nuke Trump's tax plan, plus we take a look at this week's travel ban, and let's talk about drones. ♦ An explosive tweet fired off by President Donald Trump ally Elon Musk yesterday sent a tremor through the White House as it aims to shore up senate support for Trump's tax bill. For more on that story, my colleague Dana Taylor spoke with USA TODAY senior Congress reporter, Riley Beggin. Dana Taylor: Thanks for coming on the show, Riley. Riley Beggin: Of course. Dana Taylor: Let's start with this very strongly worded tweet for Musk. What did it say exactly, and what's the reaction been so far? Riley Beggin: What he posted on his platform X is that his followers, which there's more than 220 million of them, should call their lawmakers and urge them to, quote, "Kill the bill." This is a reference to this sweeping GOP tax bill that Republicans are working on. It's already passed the House, and it's here in the Senate. A lot of things still to work on here, so it's certainly a bomb that's been thrown in the middle of this. Dana Taylor: This comes on the heels of some strongly worded tweets from Musk Tuesday. What happened there? Riley Beggin: On Tuesday, he called the bill a, quote, "disgusting abomination," also very strong words, and suggested that Republicans who voted for the package should face primary challenges. For context, Elon Musk has put a lot of money into political races over the last cycle. He's said he's done with it, but this may indicate that he wants back in. The other thing I'll mention is that, when he says all the Republicans who voted for this package should face primary challenges, that is all of them. All the Republicans in the House voted for this bill except for just two. So it's certainly a sweeping demand. Dana Taylor: Musk, on the one hand, has been a huge help to Trump funneling around $300 million into his campaign. Then on the other, he's now leading the criticism surrounding this big budget bill. What are you hearing on this front? Riley Beggin: It's definitely been a surprise to Republican lawmakers who've been working on this and have been working relatively closely with him and with the Trump administration on cutting back government spending. House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Wednesday that he thinks that Musk is, quote, "flat wrong," and he seemed really surprised by the comments. Johnson said he reached out to Musk and wasn't able to get through. Then Musk is responding to this in a public platform. He seemed a little taken aback. At the same time, I'll say the rank and file lawmakers and senators have said, "The people who care about this is the media. This doesn't matter to us. Elon Musk is not a legislator. In the end we will do what's right for our constituents." Dana Taylor: Riley, as you mentioned, at the end of the day, Musk can say only once he's technically no longer a special employee with the Trump administration. Bottom line it for us here. Could Musk's social posts actually impact the Senate's consideration of Trump's budget priorities? Riley Beggin: I think the biggest impact you're going to see potentially from Elon Musk's commentary here is making those Republicans who already feel that this package is too expensive more resolute in their objections. There are senators who are considering this legislation right now, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin or Rand Paul of Kentucky, who have drawn pretty bold red lines saying, "This is too expensive. I'm not going to vote for it unless we can cut the amount of spending that's in this package." So we can expect potentially them to dig in even further, be less swayed when knowing that the richest man on Earth is on their side. But in the end, we'll have to see. They can lose three votes in the Senate and still get it through. So if everyone else hangs together, it may be just fine for them. Dana Taylor: Riley Beggin is the senior Congress and campaigns reporter for USA TODAY. It's always good to have you on The Excerpt, Riley. Riley Beggin: Thank you for having me. ♦ Taylor Wilson: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said about 10.9 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage through 2034 under Trump's tax bill, including more than a million undocumented residents. The legislation that cleared the House would require non-disabled Americans on Medicaid to work at least 80 hours per month or qualify for an exemption, like being a student or caregiver. The bill also would strip coverage to immigrants who get Medicaid through state-funded programs. The CBO had earlier estimated nearly four million people would lose health insurance coverage through 2034 if Congress did not extend COVID-19 pandemic era tax credits that have made ACA plans more affordable for consumers. ♦ It was another day of whiplash news out of the Trump administration. Trump issued a travel ban blocking the entry of foreign nationals from 12 countries into the United States. He cited national security risks posed by citizens of the targeted nations, which include several Middle Eastern and African countries. He also partially restricted the entry of foreign nationals from seven other nations. Those under the full ban range from Afghanistan to Haiti and Sudan. In his announcement, Trump pointed to last weekend's fiery assault on pro-Jewish demonstrators in Colorado. The suspect is a native of Egypt who came to the US on a tourist visa in late 2022 and stayed after the visa expired. Trump's move revives a controversial policy from his first term that is likely to be challenged in court. Meanwhile, in separate news, the Education Department yesterday sent a letter urging Columbia University's accreditor to rescind its century-old accreditation status, which the Ivy League school relies on to receive federal financial aid funding. The announcement comes as President Trump's administration continues to intensify its pressure on selective universities over accusations of rampant antisemitism and liberal bias. ♦ President Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin told him during a call yesterday that a plan to retaliate against Ukraine's recent surprise drone attack that destroyed dozens of Russian bombers. Trump in a post on Truth Social described the 75-minute phone call with Putin as a good conversation but added it was not a conversation that will lead to immediate peace. The call was the first time Trump has spoken to Putin since he publicly warned the Russian president last week that he was playing with fire by attacking Ukraine amid peace talks. For more on Russia and Ukraine's peace negotiation process as well as NATO's role in that and other critical security concerns gripping Europe, be sure to tune in today beginning at 4:00 p.m. Eastern time when you can hear my colleague Dana Taylor's conversation with Council on Foreign Relations' senior fellow, Max Boot. ♦ A recent Ukraine drone attack shows that familiar-looking drones can be terrifying weapons. I talked about drones with USA TODAY national correspondent Elizabeth Weise. Thanks as always for joining me, Beth. Elizabeth Weise: Happy to be here. Taylor Wilson: Just starting with what we've seen recently in Europe, how have we seen drones used as part of warfare there? Elizabeth Weise: People have been using drones in warfare for decades. In fact, the US first used them in Afghanistan in 2001. But things really took a major, major turn probably about two years ago in the war in Ukraine. After Russia invaded Ukraine, it was clear that Ukraine just didn't have the resources, the backing, the armament that Russia did. So they began to iterate on the fly, and one of the things they started working with is the use of drones to do surveillance, to send out bombs, and as we saw earlier this week, to perform a major attack that destroyed dozens of Russian bombers deep with inside Russia. So we've really entered a new phase. Taylor Wilson: Beth, I think folks have different ideas of drones in their head when they hear that word. How different are war drones like these from play drones? Elizabeth Weise: That is what surprised me, and that was kind of the impetus behind the story is that if you like to watch action movies, and I certainly do, you tend to think of drones as they may be a little smaller than a car and they're an unmanned aerial vehicle that somebody someplace else is piloting and they carry bombs or whatever, but they're big, they're an expensive piece of military technology. What's changed is that the drones that the Ukrainians are using, and that increasingly the Russians are using against the Ukrainians, they're just off-the-shelf drones that you could buy. People buy them online. You can go into a store and buy them. A lot of them come from China. But then what the Ukrainians started doing is they would take these off-the-shelf drones, which are pretty sophisticated in and of themselves, and they would write new software for them. They would fabricate new components for them. They're doing a lot of 3D printing to allow them to do different things. So if you were to be in a battlefield and you saw one going by, it wouldn't look all that different from the ones you might see if you're out at the beach and somebody's got a drone up taking pictures of the water. That actually was a big surprise to me. Taylor Wilson: Considering that, Beth, you spoke with one expert who said the nature of warfare has transformed. How does the US military approach this technology? Elizabeth Weise: The US has been concerned about drones and working on the concept of both protecting people against drones and how you use them on the battlefield for a couple of decades. There actually was a congressional report that just came out April 1st looking into this: How can we protect ourselves against drones, and how might they be used both in military settings and in terror settings? So people are thinking about them. I think in the US, the big concern is that they might become an avenue for terrorists to attack. That hasn't really happened yet, but it is something that people are thinking about. Taylor Wilson: Well, of course, drones are being used for all kinds of nonviolent, non-war related purposes. What are some of the innovations we've seen, Beth, and how are these things becoming a bigger part of our daily lives? Elizabeth Weise: That's the thing to remember is that here, and across much of the world, drones are really remarkable technology that make all these fantastic things not only available but cheap in ways that you never could have imagined. I first started seeing them when I was covering agriculture about 20 years ago. Farmers were just thrilled because you could send a drone out into a field to inspect it without having to walk through it or drive something through it. You can use them to inspect power lines, bridges, buildings. Insurance companies use them because, especially if there's been a claim maybe after a big storm, you send out drones, you can look all over a building. If you've looked at Zillow or any of the real estate sites and you see those gorgeous images of coming up on and over a house so that you can see its gardens, that's all shot with drones. They're used in search and rescue operations. We use them actually in the military. In fact, the people that I talked to at Virginia Tech, which has the Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership program, they actually trained USA TODAY videographers 10 years ago in how to use drones to capture footage of big things like floods, forest fires. I remember when our photographers first started going out with drones and you had to call in a special photographer who had the training who could take a drone up, you got these incredible shots. Now you see them everywhere. So it's a remarkable innovation. Far from being a toy, they're just a multi-million dollar industry that has made a lot of things better. But like all things, humans can always find a way to make them deadly. Taylor Wilson: Elizabeth Weise is a national correspondent with USA TODAY. Thanks, Beth. Elizabeth Weise: Happy to be here. ♦ Taylor Wilson: Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. You can get the podcast wherever you get your audio. If you're on a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. I'm Taylor Wilson, and I'll be back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence
Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence Show Caption Hide Caption Mexico takes on American gun companies at Supreme Court Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism as Mexico attempted to hold American gun companies responsible for drug cartel violence. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 5 rejected Mexico's attempt to hold U.S. gunmakers liable for violence and atrocities Mexican drug cartels have inflicted using their weapons. The court unanimously ruled that firearms makers are protected by a federal law barring certain lawsuits against them. "An action cannot be brought against a manufacturer if, like Mexico's, it is founded on a third-party's criminal use of the company's product," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court. The decision landed against a backdrop of strained diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico. President Donald Trump wants Mexico to do more to stop illegal drugs from flowing into the United States and Mexico wants to stop illegal arms from flowing south. Mexico has maintained tighter regulations on firearms than its neighbor to the north. The case was also the first time the Supreme Court ruled on a 2005 law that shields gunmakers from liability for crimes committed by third parties. An exception in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act allows suits if a gunmaker is accused of knowingly violating a state or federal law. Attorneys representing Mexico argued that gun companies are 'aiding and abetting' the trafficking of hundreds of thousands of high-powered firearms into Mexico through deliberate design, marketing and distribution choices. That includes doing business with dealers who repeatedly sell large quantities of guns to cartel traffickers, Mexico's counsel alleged. Firearms makers, led by Smith & Wesson Brands, said the chain of events between the manufacture of a gun and the harm it causes after being sold, transported, and used to commit crime in Mexico involves too many steps to blame the industry. Guns made in the United States are sold to federally licensed distributors who sell them to federally licensed dealers – some of whom knowingly or negligently sell them to criminals who smuggle them into Mexico, where they end up in the hands of cartel members. What the Trump administration means for you: Sign up for USA TODAY's On Politics newsletter. Mexico's attorneys stressed that the suit was in its early stages and said Mexico should be allowed a chance to prove its allegations in court. A federal judge in Massachusetts dismissed the suit, ruling it was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms. But the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the challenge met an exception in the law and could move forward. Mexico, it said, had adequately alleged the gunmakers 'aided and abetted the knowingly unlawful downstream trafficking of their guns into Mexico.' The Supreme Court disagreed, saying Mexico's lawsuit "closely resembles" the type of challenges Congress was trying to prevent. If Mexico's suit meets the exceptions in the law, that would "swallow most of the rule," Kagan wrote. Mexico was seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages, estimated in the range of $10 billion, and a court order requiring gun companies to change their practices. Lawyers for gun rights groups told the Supreme Court that Mexico's suit is an attempt to bankrupt the American firearms industry and undermine the Second Amendment. Gun violence prevention groups worried the case could make it harder to bring domestic lawsuits against the gun industry. David Pucino, legal director at GIFFORDS Law Center, said after the decision that the Supreme Court may have ended Mexico's lawsuit but 'the justices did not give the gun industry the broad immunity it sought.' Pucino said the decision 'does not affect our ability an resolve to hold those who break the law accountable.' The case is Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
'Difficult decision': After 18 years, Hooters abruptly closes Jacksonville restaurant
💻 Sign up for Dining Notes, the free weekly restaurant newsletter from the Times-Union's Gary Mills delivered to your email inbox each Wednesday. Sign up now. Nearly a year after Hooters shuttered its Orange Park restaurant in a wave of closings across the United States, the so-called 'breastaurant' chain founded four decades ago in Clearwater has closed one of its two remaining Jacksonville locations. On June 4, the Hooters restaurant at 4521 Southside Blvd. closed, ending an 18-year run near the 20-screen Cinemark Tinseltown. By evening, the location had been removed from the chain's website. "Hooters made the difficult decision to close our Jacksonville Southside location, effective June 4, 2025," a spokesperson said in a statement shared with First Coast News, a Times-Union news partner. The Jacksonville restaurant was just one of dozens of additional Hooters restaurants to close. At least 30 other locations closed June 4, including Florida restaurants in Tallahassee, Orlando, Kissimmee and Melbourne, according to USA TODAY and the Tallahassee Democrat. "Hooters will be well-positioned to continue our iconic legacy under a pure franchise business model," the company said. "We are committed to supporting our impacted team members throughout this process and are incredibly grateful to our valued customers for their loyalty and dedication to the Hooters brand." "By optimizing our business in support of our long-term goals, Hooters will be well-positioned to continue our iconic legacy under a pure franchise business model." More notable closings: Restaurants we've lost in Jacksonville in 2025 The restaurant opened at Tinseltown in April 2007 in the former Tony Roma's spot. It was one of several restaurants at the Tinseltown complex, including Seven Bridges Grille & Brewery, Terra Gaucha Brazilian Steakhouse, Culhane's Irish Pub, Mellow Mushroom, Purple Roots, Senor Loco Taco, Bottlenose Brewing and a handful of fast-food restaurants. The closing of the restaurant leaves just one Hooters location open in Jacksonville, at 8938 San Jose Blvd. At one point, Hooters operated several area restaurants, including 1137 Beacon Point in the Regency area; 4106 Third St. S. in Jacksonville Beach; 1740 Wells Road in Orange Park; and The Jacksonville Landing, where it was open for the entire 32-year life of the downtown shopping and dining center until its closing in June 2019. The Tinseltown restaurant was owned by a subsidiary of Atlanta-based Hooters of America, which also owns the San Jose Blvd. location. The company filed for bankruptcy in March, USA TODAY reported. At the time, the chain had hoped to sell 151 of its corporate-owned restaurants to a group and expressed optimism for the storied chain's future. "Hooters is here to stay, and with a stronger financial foundation and streamlined operations on the other side of this process, we will be well-positioned to continue delivering the guest-obsessed hospitality experience and delicious food our valued customers and communities have come to expect well into the future," the company wrote on its website at the time. The following locations were confirmed by USA TODAY to be closed, as a prerecorded message announcing the closure was played when the listed phone number was called: Sanford, Florida Orlando, Florida – Kirkman Road Kissimmee, Florida – Osceola Parkway Melbourne, Florida Atlanta, Georgia – Downtown Douglasville, Georgia Gwinnett, Georgia Valdosta, Georgia Greenwood, Indiana Rockford, Illinois Newport, Kentucky Flint, Michigan Taylor, Michigan St. Louis, Missouri – Downtown Charlotte, North Carolina – South Boulevard Columbia, South Carolina Rock Hill, South Carolina Murfreesboro, Tennessee Memphis, Tennessee – Downtown Nashville, Tennessee – Harding Place Grapevine, Texas Houston, Texas – 120 FM 1960 W San Marcos, Texas James Powel of USA TODAY contributed to this report. This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: Hooters permanently closes Southside Jacksonville, FL restaurant Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
