cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Filing BK...where cc debt is your employer...!

tag
MyFico_704
Regular Contributor

Filing BK...where cc debt is your employer...!

Has anyone had the experience of owing too much on a credit card that is also your employer AND having to file bk?

 

I am aware that the employer CAN NOT fire you!  But I was curious how everything for you was from the perspective of HR, internal job postings?  I don't think HR can tell your managers about you filing bk....?

 

In that situation now... want to file soon but very apprehensive about advancement in the company..!!

 

 

Message 1 of 15
14 REPLIES 14
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Filing BK...where cc debt is your employer...!

I'm not sure which state you are in or what type of work you do.  But an employer can fire "at will" employees for any reason and any time (except for discrimination against a protected status), including if they don't like that you went bankrupt.  Now there will be various rules to this in different states, and some states may limit "at will" discretions. 

 

But in general, if you are not under contract, you are very likely classified as 'at will.'

 

Please do not take this as me telling you that you will get fired.  I was just trying to explain that you can be fired, technically speaking, depending on your employment status and the state your are in as related to "at will" status.

 

Hope everything works out for the best.

 

Smiley Happy

 

Message 2 of 15
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Filing BK...where cc debt is your employer...!


@Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure which state you are in or what type of work you do.  But an employer can fire "at will" employees for any reason and any time (except for discrimination against a protected status), including if they don't like that you went bankrupt.  Now there will be various rules to this in different states, and some states may limit "at will" discretions. 

 

But in general, if you are not under contract, you are very likely classified as 'at will.'

 

Please do not take this as me telling you that you will get fired.  I was just trying to explain that you can be fired, technically speaking, depending on your employment status and the state your are in as related to "at will" status.

 

Hope everything works out for the best.

 

Smiley Happy

 


While the analysis of at will employment is correct, no creditor / employer can take retribution for one having filed BK where there can be the appearance of the adverse employment action designed to enforce a debt.  If your employer fires you and there is the slighest implication it is because you filed BK, consider yourself lucky as you a halfway decent lawyer can get you a high six-figure payout in court.

 

In order to overcome the strong presumption of firing you to enforce a debt included in BK, your employer is going to have to catch you in a flagrant violation of a published company policy or have a well-documented case of substandard work performance with ample opportunity offered for correction.

Message 3 of 15
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Filing BK...where cc debt is your employer...!


@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure which state you are in or what type of work you do.  But an employer can fire "at will" employees for any reason and any time (except for discrimination against a protected status), including if they don't like that you went bankrupt.  Now there will be various rules to this in different states, and some states may limit "at will" discretions. 

 

But in general, if you are not under contract, you are very likely classified as 'at will.'

 

Please do not take this as me telling you that you will get fired.  I was just trying to explain that you can be fired, technically speaking, depending on your employment status and the state your are in as related to "at will" status.

 

Hope everything works out for the best.

 

Smiley Happy

 


While the analysis of at will employment is correct, no creditor / employer can take retribution for one having filed BK where there can be the appearance of the adverse employment action designed to enforce a debt.  If your employer fires you and there is the slighest implication it is because you filed BK, consider yourself lucky as you a halfway decent lawyer can get you a high six-figure payout in court.

 

In order to overcome the strong presumption of firing you to enforce a debt included in BK, your employer is going to have to catch you in a flagrant violation of a published company policy or have a well-documented case of substandard work performance with ample opportunity offered for correction.


 

My post did not relate "enforcing a debt."  It related to the fact that the employer may find "moral or character deficiency" reasons under a bankruptcy or other areas to fire an at-will employee.

 

Nobody, but a moron, would say on the side "hey pay us anyway or you're fired."  But they could say, "we don't trust you anymore, goodbye" and you would have NO GROUNDS for action, as an at will employee. 

 

In fact, going bankrupt on the employer could be interpreted as a breach under an employment contract, and even if not at-will, they could successfully fire an employee.  They are under no obligation to maintain at-will employment, and they are within their rights of employment contract to fire if there are clauses of "moral" "character" or other "breach of trust" provisions.  They just couldn't use this a method to extract payment against consent.

 

A bankruptcy discharges debt liability, it does not discharge the consequences.  Banks can refuse to provide services.  Employers can refuse to hire.  Landlords can refuse to rent. 

So, I respectfully disagree with O6, with the exception if the employer specifically went on the record (could be proven) that they essentially used extortion.

 

Another example:  prior to discharge, the employer could state: "we want you to re-affirm the debt" and if you don't, they could fire you.  They did not threaten nor use extortion.  They made a legitimate request for consideration.  And they made a legitimate decision about employment.

 

Disclaimer:  This is theoretical information, not legal advise.  Talk to your attorney.  Also HAVE YOU CONSIDERED re-affirming your employer debt if you go into BK7?  This would probably go a long way toward "good faith" with them. 

 

 

Message 4 of 15
MyFico_704
Regular Contributor

Re: Filing BK...where cc debt is your employer...!

Thanks for the comments guys..excellent discussions!  Yes I have thought about re-affirming the employer cc...it's only 12k..but all others a total 60k.

I know I have room to grow here at this company but I'm just torn due to the fact that I work here.

 

Just wanted to see if anyone else had the same experiences in the past AND if there were any actions/consequences resulting from filing bk when having debt w/ employer.

 

Again, I know they can not directly fire someone for filing bk, there is actual bk provisions to protect people. But I'm also thinking they can "dig up" or "find" some reason to let you go...

Message 5 of 15
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Filing BK...where cc debt is your employer...!


@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure which state you are in or what type of work you do.  But an employer can fire "at will" employees for any reason and any time (except for discrimination against a protected status), including if they don't like that you went bankrupt.  Now there will be various rules to this in different states, and some states may limit "at will" discretions. 

 

But in general, if you are not under contract, you are very likely classified as 'at will.'

 

Please do not take this as me telling you that you will get fired.  I was just trying to explain that you can be fired, technically speaking, depending on your employment status and the state your are in as related to "at will" status.

 

Hope everything works out for the best.

 

Smiley Happy

 


While the analysis of at will employment is correct, no creditor / employer can take retribution for one having filed BK where there can be the appearance of the adverse employment action designed to enforce a debt.  If your employer fires you and there is the slighest implication it is because you filed BK, consider yourself lucky as you a halfway decent lawyer can get you a high six-figure payout in court.

 

In order to overcome the strong presumption of firing you to enforce a debt included in BK, your employer is going to have to catch you in a flagrant violation of a published company policy or have a well-documented case of substandard work performance with ample opportunity offered for correction.


 

My post did not relate "enforcing a debt."  It related to the fact that the employer may find "moral or character deficiency" reasons under a bankruptcy or other areas to fire an at-will employee.

 

Nobody, but a moron, would say on the side "hey pay us anyway or you're fired."  But they could say, "we don't trust you anymore, goodbye" and you would have NO GROUNDS for action, as an at will employee. 

 

In fact, going bankrupt on the employer could be interpreted as a breach under an employment contract, and even if not at-will, they could successfully fire an employee.  They are under no obligation to maintain at-will employment, and they are within their rights of employment contract to fire if there are clauses of "moral" "character" or other "breach of trust" provisions.  They just couldn't use this a method to extract payment against consent.

 

A bankruptcy discharges debt liability, it does not discharge the consequences.  Banks can refuse to provide services.  Employers can refuse to hire.  Landlords can refuse to rent. 

So, I respectfully disagree with O6, with the exception if the employer specifically went on the record (could be proven) that they essentially used extortion.

 

Another example:  prior to discharge, the employer could state: "we want you to re-affirm the debt" and if you don't, they could fire you.  They did not threaten nor use extortion.  They made a legitimate request for consideration.  And they made a legitimate decision about employment.

 

Disclaimer:  This is theoretical information, not legal advise.  Talk to your attorney.  Also HAVE YOU CONSIDERED re-affirming your employer debt if you go into BK7?  This would probably go a long way toward "good faith" with them. 

 

 


This is legal advice and not theoretical information:

 

An employer does not need to be so rude and crass with coming out and specifically stating the termination is an act of retribution for failure to pay a debt included in BK.  Again, as I previously stated, without sufficient documentation of employee misconduct and / or substandard performance, the legal presumption is that the termination is not only a violation of the automatic stay (if still in force), but actionable as unlawful termination no matter what type of spin they choose to put on it.

 

Again, this is according to the law and established case history and not somebody's theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message 6 of 15
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Filing BK...where cc debt is your employer...!


@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure which state you are in or what type of work you do.  But an employer can fire "at will" employees for any reason and any time (except for discrimination against a protected status), including if they don't like that you went bankrupt.  Now there will be various rules to this in different states, and some states may limit "at will" discretions. 

 

But in general, if you are not under contract, you are very likely classified as 'at will.'

 

Please do not take this as me telling you that you will get fired.  I was just trying to explain that you can be fired, technically speaking, depending on your employment status and the state your are in as related to "at will" status.

 

Hope everything works out for the best.

 

Smiley Happy

 


While the analysis of at will employment is correct, no creditor / employer can take retribution for one having filed BK where there can be the appearance of the adverse employment action designed to enforce a debt.  If your employer fires you and there is the slighest implication it is because you filed BK, consider yourself lucky as you a halfway decent lawyer can get you a high six-figure payout in court.

 

In order to overcome the strong presumption of firing you to enforce a debt included in BK, your employer is going to have to catch you in a flagrant violation of a published company policy or have a well-documented case of substandard work performance with ample opportunity offered for correction.


 

My post did not relate "enforcing a debt."  It related to the fact that the employer may find "moral or character deficiency" reasons under a bankruptcy or other areas to fire an at-will employee.

 

Nobody, but a moron, would say on the side "hey pay us anyway or you're fired."  But they could say, "we don't trust you anymore, goodbye" and you would have NO GROUNDS for action, as an at will employee. 

 

In fact, going bankrupt on the employer could be interpreted as a breach under an employment contract, and even if not at-will, they could successfully fire an employee.  They are under no obligation to maintain at-will employment, and they are within their rights of employment contract to fire if there are clauses of "moral" "character" or other "breach of trust" provisions.  They just couldn't use this a method to extract payment against consent.

 

A bankruptcy discharges debt liability, it does not discharge the consequences.  Banks can refuse to provide services.  Employers can refuse to hire.  Landlords can refuse to rent. 

So, I respectfully disagree with O6, with the exception if the employer specifically went on the record (could be proven) that they essentially used extortion.

 

Another example:  prior to discharge, the employer could state: "we want you to re-affirm the debt" and if you don't, they could fire you.  They did not threaten nor use extortion.  They made a legitimate request for consideration.  And they made a legitimate decision about employment.

 

Disclaimer:  This is theoretical information, not legal advise.  Talk to your attorney.  Also HAVE YOU CONSIDERED re-affirming your employer debt if you go into BK7?  This would probably go a long way toward "good faith" with them. 

 

 


This is legal advice and not theoretical information:

 

An employer does not need to be so rude and crass with coming out and specifically stating the termination is an act of retribution for failure to pay a debt included in BK.  Again, as I previously stated, without sufficient documentation of employee misconduct and / or substandard performance, the legal presumption is that the termination is not only a violation of the automatic stay (if still in force), but actionable as unlawful termination no matter what type of spin they choose to put on it.

 

Again, this is according to the law and established case history and not somebody's theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Anything discussed on a forum, without all details in hand, and speaking in generalities of "possible" outcomes is NOT legal advice and anyone acting upon such anecdotal information is WARNED NOT TO DO SO.

 

As my parting and final words on this subject, and IMO only as theoretical information related to a general topic, an automatic stay is related to collection of debt, not the stay of employment, and that it would likely be a monumental legal task to prove legal liability on the part of the employer. 

 

The reason this can be said with fair confidence is that payment of the debt does not automatically entitle the employeed to continued employment.  The employer may not accept a re-affirmation.  Obviously any payments made within 90 days of filing can be disgorged, so attempting a collection in any manner except a legitimate re-affirmation is risky to any lender, except secured lenders older than 90 days.

 

My only intent in posting is that the OP stated that an employer cannot fire due to the bankruptcy.  My point was they can, not that they will.  They can whethe a debt was owed or not, depending on the status of the employee (at-will or contract) and the clause and provisions of any contract.

 

For example:  let's say a company plans to downsize and there are a number of employees to choose from.  One defaulted and BK'd on a loan.  One did not.  In all other ways they are essentially equal in performance.  Which would they probably fire?  And how would this be in violation of any BK stay.  They did not attempt to illegally collect a debt and the stay did not impose any sanction on employment.

 

So, if there is case law or precedent to support your theory, please post that.  The law is not black and white, it is interpreted and it's meaning is as you stated generally going to be ruled by precedent.  Where no precedent exists, then precedent will be set.  And I'm not personally aware of an obligation under law for any employer to employee anyone beyond contractual obligations or related to violations of protected status (which BK is not).

 

Again, this is theoretical and IMO...as is all discussions on this board, this in not advice, though it could be used by anyone choosing to error on the side of caution...or it can be ignored in total. 

 

You are coming close to advising: stating emphatically a position of liability to the company by which the OP may decide to take certain BK actions that resulted in adverse actions by the employer.

 

I on the other hand merely discussed the pros and cons, expressly disclaiming any advice except to seek an attorney, without taking any hard position.  My position is that it is not cut and dry, black and white, and that an adverse action is POSSIBLE, as is the case in any legal matter.

 

So, to OP:

1.  Use this information as a brainstorm of ideas to ask your attorney

2.  Get an attorney

3.  Use your attorney's advice in the manner consistent with your circumstance

4.  Good Luck...hope it all works out.

 

Smiley Happy

 

 

Message Edited by txjohn on 12-12-2009 08:53 AM
Message 7 of 15
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Filing BK...where cc debt is your employer...!


@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure which state you are in or what type of work you do.  But an employer can fire "at will" employees for any reason and any time (except for discrimination against a protected status), including if they don't like that you went bankrupt.  Now there will be various rules to this in different states, and some states may limit "at will" discretions. 

 

But in general, if you are not under contract, you are very likely classified as 'at will.'

 

Please do not take this as me telling you that you will get fired.  I was just trying to explain that you can be fired, technically speaking, depending on your employment status and the state your are in as related to "at will" status.

 

Hope everything works out for the best.

 

Smiley Happy

 


While the analysis of at will employment is correct, no creditor / employer can take retribution for one having filed BK where there can be the appearance of the adverse employment action designed to enforce a debt.  If your employer fires you and there is the slighest implication it is because you filed BK, consider yourself lucky as you a halfway decent lawyer can get you a high six-figure payout in court.

 

In order to overcome the strong presumption of firing you to enforce a debt included in BK, your employer is going to have to catch you in a flagrant violation of a published company policy or have a well-documented case of substandard work performance with ample opportunity offered for correction.


 

My post did not relate "enforcing a debt."  It related to the fact that the employer may find "moral or character deficiency" reasons under a bankruptcy or other areas to fire an at-will employee.

 

Nobody, but a moron, would say on the side "hey pay us anyway or you're fired."  But they could say, "we don't trust you anymore, goodbye" and you would have NO GROUNDS for action, as an at will employee. 

 

In fact, going bankrupt on the employer could be interpreted as a breach under an employment contract, and even if not at-will, they could successfully fire an employee.  They are under no obligation to maintain at-will employment, and they are within their rights of employment contract to fire if there are clauses of "moral" "character" or other "breach of trust" provisions.  They just couldn't use this a method to extract payment against consent.

 

A bankruptcy discharges debt liability, it does not discharge the consequences.  Banks can refuse to provide services.  Employers can refuse to hire.  Landlords can refuse to rent. 

So, I respectfully disagree with O6, with the exception if the employer specifically went on the record (could be proven) that they essentially used extortion.

 

Another example:  prior to discharge, the employer could state: "we want you to re-affirm the debt" and if you don't, they could fire you.  They did not threaten nor use extortion.  They made a legitimate request for consideration.  And they made a legitimate decision about employment.

 

Disclaimer:  This is theoretical information, not legal advise.  Talk to your attorney.  Also HAVE YOU CONSIDERED re-affirming your employer debt if you go into BK7?  This would probably go a long way toward "good faith" with them. 

 

 


This is legal advice and not theoretical information:

 

An employer does not need to be so rude and crass with coming out and specifically stating the termination is an act of retribution for failure to pay a debt included in BK.  Again, as I previously stated, without sufficient documentation of employee misconduct and / or substandard performance, the legal presumption is that the termination is not only a violation of the automatic stay (if still in force), but actionable as unlawful termination no matter what type of spin they choose to put on it.

 

Again, this is according to the law and established case history and not somebody's theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Anything discussed on a forum, without all details in hand, and speaking in generalities of "possible" outcomes is NOT legal advice and anyone acting upon such anecdotal information is WARNED NOT TO DO SO.

 

As my parting and final words on this subject, and IMO only as theoretical information related to a general topic, an automatic stay is related to collection of debt, not the stay of employment, and that it would likely be a monumental legal task to prove legal liability on the part of the employer. 

 

The reason this can be said with fair confidence is that payment of the debt does not automatically entitle the employeed to continued employment.  The employer may not accept a re-affirmation.  Obviously any payments made within 90 days of filing can be disgorged, so attempting a collection in any manner except a legitimate re-affirmation is risky to any lender, except secured lenders older than 90 days.

 

My only intent in posting is that the OP stated that an employer cannot fire due to the bankruptcy.  My point was they can, not that they will.  They can whethe a debt was owed or not, depending on the status of the employee (at-will or contract) and the clause and provisions of any contract.

 

For example:  let's say a company plans to downsize and there are a number of employees to choose from.  One defaulted and BK'd on a loan.  One did not.  In all other ways they are essentially equal in performance.  Which would they probably fire?  And how would this be in violation of any BK stay.  They did not attempt to illegally collect a debt and the stay did not impose any sanction on employment.

 

So, if there is case law or precedent to support your theory, please post that.  The law is not black and white, it is interpreted and it's meaning is as you stated generally going to be ruled by precedent.  Where no precedent exists, then precedent will be set.  And I'm not personally aware of an obligation under law for any employer to employee anyone beyond contractual obligations or related to violations of protected status (which BK is not).

 

Again, this is theoretical and IMO...as is all discussions on this board, this in not advice, though it could be used by anyone choosing to error on the side of caution...or it can be ignored in total. 

 

You are coming close to advising: stating emphatically a position of liability to the company by which the OP may decide to take certain BK actions that resulted in adverse actions by the employer.

 

I on the other hand merely discussed the pros and cons, expressly disclaiming any advice except to seek an attorney, without taking any hard position.  My position is that it is not cut and dry, black and white, and that an adverse action is POSSIBLE, as is the case in any legal matter.

 

So, to OP:

1.  Use this information as a brainstorm of ideas to ask your attorney

2.  Get an attorney

3.  Use your attorney's advice in the manner consistent with your circumstance

4.  Good Luck...hope it all works out.

 

Smiley Happy

 

 

Message Edited by txjohn on 12-12-2009 08:53 AM

 

Based on the facts OP has revealed and on my experience as an attorney who has handled many cases similar to what OP has stated, termination would be actionable in court as I have previously pointed out.  The law is quite clear that taking adverse action against an employee to enforce a debt discharged in BK is actionable in both a penal and a civil venue. 

 

The fact that you try to confuse things with covert scenarios is not convincing.  The court has ways to decipher an employer's true intentions when taking adverse action against an employee in OP's situation just as the court does in other situations including race, sex and age discrimination.  It would be extremely naive to believe that a court cannot unravel and separate fact from fiction.

 

If you are an attorney with experience and case law to share, please provide it.

 

Now, just because the law sides with those in OP's predicament doesn't mean the employer will follow the law.  If reaffirmation is possible, there is a possibility the employer may be appeased, but there is no guarantee.

Message 8 of 15
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Filing BK...where cc debt is your employer...!

O6,

 

One last time:  I am not stating the OP will be fired.  I stated that they could be, not because the BK would be cited as the specific reason, but that an at-will employee can be terminated without cause.  And I emphatically stated that only a moron (the employer) would attempt to extort a collection.

 

I agreed with you that if they went on the record and made an obvious show that this was an attempt to collect a discharged or debt subject to the automatic stay, they would be liable.  But that if they terminated the employee in the normal course of business, how would the employee prove liability or discrimination due to BK, especially if the employee was one of many in the layoff.

 

At will employees should maintain the best relations possible with employers in these economic times.  When downsizing is the trend, there would be no claim of liability if the OP was on the pink list (meaning multiple persons terminated).

 

My INTENT was that in the realm of how an employee is viewed will have an impact on their future with that employer.  And again, I have no doubt that the BK would never become an issue or record.  But it would never provide any benefit to the employee/employer relationship.

 

So, when looking at the overall relationship, and that when cuts come, who is to say how the BK could be factored in.  If this is a mega-corp, then I doubt it would have any impact because they are to big to even know who they are.  But if they are small to mid size, when it comes time to downsize, how could the BK be beneficial when the pink slips will be subjective and without cause, they will be lay offs in general.  When the owner/employer must choose who goes and who stays, how can one say this would not end up being a factor in the weighting process.  When the pink slips go out, the cause will be downsizing.

 

My aplogies if my intent was not well enough communicated or if I appeared overly argumentative.

 

 

Message 9 of 15
Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Filing BK...where cc debt is your employer...!


@Anonymous wrote:

O6,

 

One last time:  I am not stating the OP will be fired.  I stated that they could be, not because the BK would be cited as the specific reason, but that an at-will employee can be terminated without cause.  And I emphatically stated that only a moron (the employer) would attempt to extort a collection.

 

I agreed with you that if they went on the record and made an obvious show that this was an attempt to collect a discharged or debt subject to the automatic stay, they would be liable.  But that if they terminated the employee in the normal course of business, how would the employee prove liability or discrimination due to BK, especially if the employee was one of many in the layoff.

 

At will employees should maintain the best relations possible with employers in these economic times.  When downsizing is the trend, there would be no claim of liability if the OP was on the pink list (meaning multiple persons terminated).

 

My INTENT was that in the realm of how an employee is viewed will have an impact on their future with that employer.  And again, I have no doubt that the BK would never become an issue or record.  But it would never provide any benefit to the employee/employer relationship.

 

So, when looking at the overall relationship, and that when cuts come, who is to say how the BK could be factored in.  If this is a mega-corp, then I doubt it would have any impact because they are to big to even know who they are.  But if they are small to mid size, when it comes time to downsize, how could the BK be beneficial when the pink slips will be subjective and without cause, they will be lay offs in general.  When the owner/employer must choose who goes and who stays, how can one say this would not end up being a factor in the weighting process.  When the pink slips go out, the cause will be downsizing.

 

My aplogies if my intent was not well enough communicated or if I appeared overly argumentative.

 

 


 

You are right that an employer would have to be a dunce to specifically site a debt to the company discharged in BK as cause of termination.

 

Still, we need to realize that the burden of proof in a civil action is far, far lower than in a criminal action where we have guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  In a civil action, one must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff's case is more likely to be true than the defendant's.  We also need to realize that the plaintiff's attorney has broad and extensive subpeona powers with an almost unlimited ability to use various forms of forensics.  For example, in one actual case against a major banking institution, the judge was convinced the termination was retaliation for the employee having filed BK simply by a) testimony of past employees who claimed termination under similar conditions and b) statistical analysis involving the number of employees terminated over a ten year period of time.  The only thing we didn't have which prevented the case from being a total slam-dunk was testimony from honest company management.

 

There are a numerous cases of unlawful termination where the defendant has prevailed simply by the presentation of statistical evidence to support their claims.  A very common way to win a lawsuit for discrimination is to show that approximately 55% of applicants are <insert race, religion, age or national origin here> yet this same protected group only makes up < 50% of the employer's work force.  Judges and juries throughout the land have found this to be defacto discrimination.  They have found defacto discrimination where an employer only advertises vacancies in venues where <insert race, religion, age or national origin here> are unlikely to be found.  This same strategy is also successfully used in cases of termination which violates public policy, covenant of good faith and fair dealing, contractual or violation of law exceptions to at-will employment.  Gone are the days when an employer has to stand up in court and actually admit their mistakes or trip over the "smoking gun."

 

IMO, if OP & their employer can come to some mutually beneficial agreement which protects his position, so much the better.  This is often, though, not possible.  One potential problem is that if the employee reaffirms the debt to protect their job, the employer may be liable if they terminate the employee at a later date for a perfectly sound and just reason. 

 

 

 

 

Message Edited by O6 on 12-13-2009 04:15 PM
Message 10 of 15
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.