Talk:Constructive dismissal

Headword

cONSTRCUTIVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.146.17.66 (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is the headword "honorable dismissal" when the title of the article, and every single other reference within it, is to "constructive dismissal"? I'm inclined to change the headword, but if there's a good reason not to, please explain it here. Loganberry (Talk) 01:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea! (I started the article to be about "constructive dismissal" as it's understood in UK law: basically, making someone's working conditions intolerable so they quit rather than being fired.) - David Gerard 21:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Question - US law???

Does anyone know what US law says wrt constructive dismissal? If so would be grateful if they could add info here. Are there any protections against an employer 'forcing you to resign against your will' in the US? Thanks

This seems to me to be a rather foreign concept. Certainly many of the actions described here could result in some type of action against an employer, but my understanding would be that if you resigned first your position would be much weaker than if you took some sort of action while still employed, or were actually fired under questionable circumstances. However, this would probably vary state to state. I have heard of groups of former employees suing an employer for discrimination, but that seems to be somewhat different than the concept discussed here.Wschart (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a lawyer, and I know enough to know it's not a foreign concept--constructive discharge is a concept that's very much a part of U.S. law, despite the prevalence of employment at will here--but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to expand the article. Wbkelley (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dubious Examples

A reference to "forced attendance at a social event" has been added. I am not aware of any case in UK or French law (the only jurisdictions I am familiar with) where any such situation has been tested, and indeed it seems a little implausible factually. Does anyone else have awareness of any such cases please? Labour Lawyer (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The recent landmark case of the Glasgow fireman is a possible example. Nine Glasgow firemen were punished because they would not attend a rally on an issue with which they disagreed. See [1]. DFH (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

US section needs expanding

Considering this is becoming much more common in the US, I think this section needs considerable expansion. All it does currently is tell you what the law is in California. Well, most Americans do not live in California, so it's not really much help. 209.163.243.99 (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

hyperlinks needed

Could someone, please, add hyperlinks to all the laws/acts mentioned? (here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constructive_dismissal&action=edit&section=1 ) 45.61.4.155 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Removing Maintenance Template

cc: @Gilgamesh~enwiki:

Yeah. Not a high grade article, and its UK heavy. But not so much so that an ugly maintenance template is still needed. If you disagree, I will not take a revert personally. Rklahn (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I received your ping. How can I help you? - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. Should have been clearer. You placed the Maintenance Template that I removed. Feel free to revert if you think it belongs. Best. Rklahn (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that was almost a decade ago. Since the article has expanded beyond U.K. context, then that template no longer fits. However, from what I see in this article, context is still limited to the U.S., Canada and the U.K. A similar globalize template may still be appropriate if the article still needs to be globalized beyond the Anglosphere. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)