Court Awards Manager 3 Months' Notice After Only 90 Days of Employment
You just landed your dream job. Three months in, things don't work out, and you're let go. If you're an experienced professional, you might think you're only due a week or two of severance pay because your time with the company was so short.
Think again. A recent Canadian court case proves that sometimes, a short stint of work can entitle you to a much longer notice period than you might expect.
The Case: Short Tenure, Big Payout
The case, Chan v. NYX Capital Corp., involved a 47-year-old middle manager who was earning $175,000 a year and had 15 years of industry experience. Crucially, he had only worked for NYX Capital Corp. for three months.
Despite the very short time on the payroll, the Judge awarded him a three-month reasonable notice period. Meaning the company had to pay him the equivalent of three months' salary and benefits.
The Logic: Why a Short Job Can Hurt Your Job Search
Why the generous notice period? The Judge's decision was heavily influenced by the idea that a very brief period of employment makes it significantly harder for an experienced person to find a new job.
Think of it from a hiring manager's perspective:
"This candidate has 15 years of experience, but their last job ended after only three months. Why? Was it their performance? Did they not fit in? We need an explanation."
The Judge recognized that this awkward explanation—having to justify why you were terminated so soon—is a major hurdle in a job search. To account for this difficulty, the court often grants a longer notice period. The pay-out is meant to give the employee the necessary time and financial buffer to overcome this challenge and find comparable work. The court even pointed to an earlier case where an employee with five months of service was awarded five and a half months of notice for the same reason!
The Termination Clause Trap
The case also highlighted a common pitfall in employment contracts: illegal termination clauses.
The manager's employment contract had a clause that allowed the company to fire him "at any time and for any reason," even referencing "probationary employment." The Judge ruled that using language this broad made the entire clause illegal because it potentially allowed the employer to fire the employee with less notice than the bare minimum required by the Employment Standards Act (ESA).
When a termination clause is found to be illegal, the court ignores it completely and defaults to the common law rule, which requires "reasonable notice." And as this case shows, "reasonable notice" for an experienced, short-term employee can be surprisingly long.
The Takeaway
If you are an experienced professional and find yourself terminated after only a few months, don't just accept the minimum severance. The Chan case is a strong reminder that your age and experience can be a powerful factor that increases your entitlement to a lengthy notice period, even with minimal tenure.
