And perhaps a controversial take but consider the counterfactual: Should it be illegal to fire employees that recent took mental health leave? Get a bad review or put on a PIP? It's already becoming a common strategy to immediately take mental health/sick leave.
> An employer is prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against an employee or prospective employee for having exercised or attempted to exercise any FMLA right.
You can fire someone after they come back but you will need to show receipts. Your employer also doesn't pay you when you take that leave so it would be a strange way to game the system.
In civilized countries it is illegal to fire someone on sick leave, and I highly doubt you’d get a permit to fire someone who just got back from sick leave.
Yes, at least for companies the size of MongoDB
Didn't need much ruminating to come to that answer, but I lack the sociopathic behaviors necessary to run a corporation in the American legal environment.
Depending on the nature of the leave, this could've also been unlawful in the U.S. due to the Family Leave Act.
Of course, there's about a negative one thousand percent chance of something like that passing in the current political climate.
I've taken mental health leave (not due to a PIP) and my productivity before and after was significantly different. It was great for my employer that I took it. I'm quite sure I would've eventually ended up with a PIP if I hadn't taken it sooner myself, and the best remedy on a PIP would have been to take mental health leave. Not as a strategy as such, but literally because it would have been the best solution (and I think the only one).
Mental health problems are tricky; they tend to creep up on us gradually, and often some form of external trigger is needed in order to prompt us to seek help. So it shouldn't be at all surprising that an employee in receipt of a PIP might take mental health leave as part of a genuine effort to improve their situation.
gp's cynical "counterfactual" suggests that they view PIPs as being purely a sham, intended to always result in dismissal rather than improved performance. Now, that might occasionally be true - but we should be blaming the abusive employer (who is likely acting outside the law) in that situation, not the employee.
What changes between the countries is the hiring procedure.
US and UK companies mostly use a "hire anyone, keep the slightly useful ones for as long as they seem slightly useful, fire everyone else, fire them too, wash, rinse, repeat" narcissistic-sociopathic trial-and-error pseudo-method that's just guesswork dressed up as "choice".
French companies, and those in countries with similar preferences, take their time to very seriously vet the people they're hiring with a focus on the long term, and do it right from the start, following scientific hiring methodologies that leave little to no space for guesswork and gut feelings.
The result for the company is the same: the proper employee, at the proper position, doing the proper job the company needs.
The result for the employee is that the first "method", being as it is narcissistic-sociopathic, promotes unnecessary human suffering with zero actual benefit to anyone, whereas the second promotes well-being, satisfaction, and good work-life balance.
And, again, unemployment rates don't vary between them.
Now, if you believe your company would do badly under this system, maybe it would indeed. Which only goes to show you don't know how to hire properly. Start hiring better, and it'd make zero difference for you whether you're in a system or the other. In fact, start hiring better, and you may even move ahead compared to your narcissistic-sociopathic competitors, since then they will be the ones going with simple trial-and-error, while you will get the right employees from the start, and without regrets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_(employment)_in_Fran...
https://www.rippling.com/blog/termination-in-france
In particular the parts:
> French laws don’t recognize at-will employment. In France, you can’t simply dismiss an employee without reason. In fact, the French labor code makes it extremely clear that it considers termination to be an absolute last resort, especially in cases of voluntary or involuntary personal grounds for dismissal. Instead, it encourages employers to try to find other ways to resolve the problem. For example, let’s say the employee in question is having serious interpersonal issues with their manager or a coworker. You can only dismiss them after you’ve tried everything else, such as holding a meeting in which you talk to the two of them and try to find a solution, or by putting them on different projects so they don’t have to work together directly. If the company is putting technological changes in place to increase its competitiveness, before you can start the dismissal procedure, you must demonstrate you tried another course of action, such as redeployment or employee training.
> Everything must be documented. This is extremely important: You must document evidence of all events and/or incidents that led to the dismissal of the employee, even if the reasons have nothing to do with their conduct specifically. You’ll use this evidence both during the interview when you’re telling the employee why they’re being dismissed and should also keep it in case the employee decides to bring a lawsuit against your company.
---
If someone is having difficulty with their job, you first provide them training before you can fire them. From what I understand, it has to be a "we tried everything for the past year, here's all the documentation and they're still unable to do the basic requirements for the position.
France sure does a lot of things right here but above is what OP stated that I commented on which isn't the case for France. While one might have to go through some additional paperwork / procedures / ... you can in fact fire an say an underperforming employee
True, if you prove they're in fact a completely underperforming employee. Notice this is not only for the position they're in at the moment, but for every other conceivable position they might be reassigned to before the conclusion becoming it's impossible to keep them and the company positively, absolutely, needs to hire someone else for their place.
For absolute unfireability, there are countries where government employees cannot be fired no matter what, but that's not private employment so it doesn't count for your question.
The closest to that for private employers, that I know about, was Japan before the 1990's economic crisis, in which the culture (not the laws, but the culture was strong enough for it to be the same in practice) prevented companies from firing employees. If an employee became useless, the company assigned them a desk and nothing to do. After a few weeks of this the not-fired employee felt so ashamed of being paid for doing nothing 8 hours a day, they themselves asked to be let go (which was also the expected cultural thing for them to do, so they did it).
Regardless, the point is that at-will employment vs not-at-will employment doesn't affect things as much as it seems to do. And if you look at statistic comparing US States that don't have at-will employment vs those that have it, there's no practical difference either.
You might want to expand that to the youth unemployment rate.
https://tradingeconomics.com/france/youth-unemployment-rate
> Youth Unemployment Rate in France decreased to 18.90 percent in October from 19 percent in September of 2025. Youth Unemployment Rate in France averaged 20.52 percent from 1983 until 2025, reaching an all time high of 28.20 percent in November of 2012 and a record low of 14.50 percent in February of 1983.
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/youth-unemployment... for the data by country. United States is at 10.6%.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14024887 for the US data (youth being defined as 16 - 24 in that data set)
---
While the overall unemployment rate may be similar, the "hire them once and have to take exterodary action to fire them" significantly impacts the employment rate of college new graduates where it can be difficult to identify how well they actually work in the work force.
That can also lead to some social instability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_youth_protests_in_France
> ... High unemployment, especially for young immigrants, was seen as one of the driving forces behind the 2005 civil unrest in France and this unrest mobilized the perceived public urgency for the First Employment Contract. Youths are particularly at risk as they have been locked out of the same career opportunities as older workers, contributing to both a rise in tensions amongst the economically disenfranchised underclass, and, some claim, a brain drain of graduates leaving for better opportunities in Britain and the United States.
I'd argue more unemployed mature/elder is worse. Mature people in an at-will system don't become younger over the years to start finding better and better opportunities, rather their prospects become worse as time goes by. Conversely, young people become mature and find more and more opportunities as they age, so long-term not-at-will systems favor everyone, at the cost of making the start more difficult.
In both the corresponding difficulties can be reduced via welfare. But at-will systems tend, or at least it seems so to me, I may be wrong in this, to provide worse welfare, which may add weight to the comparison.
The United States is currently showing 4.1% for 20 and over with the 20-24 range at 8.3% and 25 and over at 3.7%.
For France... labor force participation (the flip of the unemployment number) for 25-54 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LRAC25TTFRQ156S is 88% and for 15-24 it is 43%.
The United States shows relatively consistent unemployment with entry level unemployment trending up. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=LNU04000036,LNU0400008... (select data sets at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?eid=48595&rid=50 )
I'm also going to challenge the "US and France have similar rates".
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/unemployment-rate
United States by that measure is 4.6% while France is 7.7%. For the US at 7.8% would be the U-6 number which includes everyone working a part time job.
> U-6 Total unemployed, plus all people marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all people marginally attached to the labor force
France's 7.7% rate matches https://www.economy.com/france/unemployment-rate (seasonly adjusted)
> The unemployed under the International Labour Office (ILO) definition comprise all working-age persons (conventionally those of at least 15 years of age) that 1°) during the reference week had no employment, even for one hour, 2°) were available to start work within the next two weeks and 3°) had actively sought employment at some time during the previous four weeks or had found a job due to start within 3 months.
Note the "even for one hour" means that comparing it to the U-6 rate is inappropriate. So comparing it to the U-3 (4.6%), U-4 (4.9%) or U-5 (5.6%) would be more correct.
----
With that in mind, I would urge you to reconsider your comparison about how increasing the difficulty to fire someone impacts employment.
Furthermore, there's only one state in the US that is not at will... Montana.
https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/employment-a...
> Montana is the only state that is not an at-will employment state. In Montana, employers must have a valid reason for terminating an employee, and employees can only be fired for just cause.
However, that is "just cause" not "have to attempt to find another position for them at the company before they can be fired."
Comparing employment stats for Montana (45th state by population) may be difficult to compare with other states. https://montanafreepress.org/2018/11/17/where-the-jobs-are-m... -- would you compare the unemployment Mato Grosso do Sul to the rest of Brazil - and would you be able to attribute employment stats there to one difference in employment law vs the rest of the country?
https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/eta/warn/glossary.asp?p=constr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal
This can easily backfire on the employer with discrimination, hostile workplace, and a variation on wrongful dismissal lawsuits.
From Wikipedia:
From a legal standpoint, it occurs when an employee is forced to resign because of intolerable working conditions which violate employment legislation, such as:
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA)
Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA)
Change in schedules in order to force employee to quit (title 12)
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA)
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
For example, in California ... https://workplacerightslaw.com/library/retaliation/construct...
To succeed on a claim for constructive discharge, you must be able to prove at least three elements:
Your employer was trying to force you to resign by intentionally and knowingly creating an employment environment that was intolerable and aggravated;
This unbearable, hostile workplace gave you no choice but to resign; and,
Your employer was motivated to get rid of you for illegal, retaliatory or discriminatory reasons.The solution is not to burn down all systems and just wild west everything. No. The solution is to anticipate the fraud, and build it into your margins and planning. Recognize it will always happen. And, in fact, the optimal amount of fraud is never zero. Because preventing fraud, too, has a cost, and it grows exponentially.
It's not legal to fire an employee on a sick leave in our country. They have to come back to work and then you can fire them. The employer is not paying their wage during the sick leave anyway, they get money from the social and health insurances. So there is very little downside for the company to keeping the employee employed. And if they employee is somehow faking it, that's an issue to check for the insurance companies.
> It's already becoming a common strategy to immediately take mental health/sick leave.
Maybe the companies should ask themselves very hard why this is happening.
Anyway here's the actual complaint (I read it after I wrote the above), I guess her parents/counsel thought the same thing: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docInde...
The complaint is speaking and it is aggressively written and, to my non-lawyer mind, pretty well drafted. If I were Mongo, I would be trying aggressively to settle this and make it go away.
If I were the parents, I would be trying very hard to force any other outcome, preferably one where Mongo pays the biggest public relations price possible for what they've done, assuming the allegations are true.
The way Mongo answers the complaint will be really instructive in figuring out how they intend to play this, and in whether they think there is some explanation that will make this seem less dire.
In the first case Mongo can likely fire her once FMLA is up (notice that the termination is 12 weeks after she started leave). Disabilities aren’t protected if they leave you unable to perform job duties, which is what Mongo will claim. Notice how the complaint tries to say additional leave is “reasonable accommodation”. Mongo will claim not working at all means you’re not fulfilling job duties and that she used up her FMLA.
In theory if you become unable to do your job due to disability you should get disability insurance, which is mandatory in NY, but it sounds like Prudential rejected the claim, hence the letter from the doctor there.
In the latter two cases, then Mongo will claim that she could come back to work and asking her to was not violating any ADA laws, and that they would have been willing to make e.g. scheduling accommodations for any treatments and so on to accommodate a disability that doesn’t prevent her from fulfilling core job duties.
However, the fact that they cancelled her health insurance a week before returning and demanded she returned on a certain date or she’d be terminated despite a demonstrated disability, that’s pretty whack and might be hard to defend as company-wide restructuring.
https://www.mongodb.com/company/blog/culture/employee-benefi...
Never trust this horseshit!
Loophole. Fire them, they're not employees, we don't have to care about them.
Especially in this context, where she asked for at least a minor extension to finish her treatment.
I suspect the parents have a solid chance of winning this because the health insurance is linked, otherwise I'd completely agree with your opinion. An employer shouldn't be responsible for mothering their employees. It creates perverse incentives on both sides of the contract
Also, the same health insurance can be continued after termination (with some external payment, of course) in addition to medicaid probably being available. None of that may be easy for someone with mental issues to navigate, but that is systematic.
As for the minor extension, is it clear how long she was on leave and what the conversation had been before the termination? The post said that they asked for small time extension, but did not give any indication as to what was happening before, neither length of time employed before taking the leave, what caused the leave, what was said in terms of a return, how long the absence was, etc. I feel like plugging in different answers for those questions would change how I feel about the culpability of the company in the current legal regime.
Still almost all of the responsibility is on the patient, which is a terrible situation to be in for mental health patients. And even if the courts will find that the termination was wrongful it's unlikely that matters, because employers are not responsible for keeping employees alive and happy, they are responsible for making the usual safety precautions (see OSHA) and disability accommodations.
All the great perks of our cherished individualism suck when you have no one to enjoy them with.
But on Sept. 13, 2024, she attempted suicide again with the same lethal drug “citing the shame she felt at being fired by MongoDB,” according to the lawsuit.
Surman apparently regretted the decision and called 911 herself — but died on the way to the hospital.
Mongo later backtracked on an offer to retrieve Annie’s life insurance policy for the family, who believe the company fired Annie right before a mass layoff to avoid paying her severance, according to the suit.
""" When she arrived at the hospital and learned that Annie had died, Ms. Connolly collapsed and screamed non-stop for hours. Hospital staff placed Ms. Connolly in a separate room for observation, and the doctor who declared Annie dead had to speak to other family members about what had occurred because Ms. Connolly could not bear to speak to him or to see Annie’s body. 88. Mr. Surman was alone in the back of a taxi to the airport when he received the call that Annie had died. He could hear his wife’s screams in the background while he was helpless to comfort her. He sobbed through his redeye flight to join Ms. Connolly.
"""
Reading the complaint, I don't see any way in which the company is not responsible for this. The about turn in requiring her to come back in couple of weeks or else be terminated is just cruel. Now, I know what companies can be like, and especially if they're doing layoffs, things can get quite bonkers. But ultimately, the responsibility rests with the company: like it or not, an employer in America is responsible for their healthcare, which means you need to be careful when dealing with what happens when you suddenly end it.
4d4m•1mo ago