Job offered was not job received.

I was hired at a non profit and was verbally told that the job would consist of
25 hours a week at a certain pay rate. I also received and have a copy of a
housing and urban development employment and pay verification form. The form
states explicitly that I would receive an average of 25 hours a week and that the
job would not be seasonal nor sporadic. The document is signed by the former head
of human resources of the non profit. I was recently laid off along with the
second employee at my position.The difference in hours was monumental including
the last two months calling for 4 hours when I should have received 200 hours on
average. The difference for the length of employment would be roughly 7,500
calculated via my W-2. Do I have case? If so where, how strong is it, for how
much, using what law and how long would it take? Thanks

Asked on February 24, 2016 under Employment Labor Law, Minnesota


SJZ, Member, New York Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney

Answered 4 years ago | Contributor

You probably have a very weak case at best. The HUD employment and income verification form is *not* a contract; rather it is a summary for informational purposes only, of what is--at that time--believed to be the case. Because it is not a contract, it is not binding--it does not compel the employer to give you that many hours or that much pay. Therefore, you would have been an "employee at will," legally subject to changes (including reductions) in pay or hours worked at any time.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.