Terminated for lack of engagement
I was hired for a medical billing position working PART-TIME in a dental office to implement medical billing for dental procedures. Shortly after being hired, it became evident that medical insurance companies weren't going to pay for these procedures in that office.
I have over 25 years of medical experience and had zero dental experience or formal training in the dental field. I was terminated for lack of engagement, not being on board with their office culture, continued lack of engagement, including lack of attention to details.
I never received any verbal or written notification of these accusations. I performed any and all of my job duties at 100% with the knowledge and experience I had. I informed my employer that I wasn't challenged with this position. I was informed that I would be included in their dental billing workflow and I received a promotion as their hygiene coordinator. I was already their hygiene coordinator.
I was hired as a medical biller working part-time and ended up working as a dental receptionist working full time.
Your opinion would be appreciated.
Response About a Discharge for a Lack of Engagement
Are you telling me the two emails I already sent, were not helpful? Or, are you telling me you did not receive the last one and want me to include it in a comment for the blog?
From my perspective, what you provided
here is not nearly as specific as to why you believe you were fired for lack of engagement (poor performance) or that was just being used by the employer as an arguable reason to deny benefits, when they responded to the notice of claim filed sent to them by the Idaho unemployment department.
Again, I would like to stress that when it's an employer who chooses to be the moving party to end the job, it's supposed to mean the UI dept. expect it to be the employer who must meet the burden of proof and prove the discharge was for misconduct.
How does an employer prove a lack of engagement rises to a level of work related misconduct .. without having any documentation to support that as fact?
The basic premise of an employer's burden is to prove the employee was aware of rules and expectations of the job, and to prove the employee was ultimately made aware continuing with any behavior, or rule violation that had previously been warned about, the employee was the one to put their job in jeopardy of being terminated from it.
So, if you know this, you know what I think a fired person should consider for a phone adjudication interview, resulting in a eligibility determination based upon the available information, or to prepare for an unemployment appeal hearing, which is the full fact finder session.
Chris - Unemployment-Tips.com