Same goes for PG or YC Partners, just say, "if you drop me a line saying you want to deal with this, contact me and we can discuss it and I'll see if it makes sense to disclose it."

The people I reached out to didn't even know or speak directly about the founders or startup itself. But because they had been in similar situations before, they knew what to look for that might become issues in the future, and then I could cross-reference that with my own personal experience to make a judgment.

Yes... and Yes.

What will happen? Will YC yank funding over this? I hope not -- that would set a dangerous precedent and make me, for one, that much less willing to pursue YC funding.

If the founders didn't want the OP before -- they especially aren't going to want him now that all this has occurred and threats about getting YC involved etc.

The bottom line -- you can be terminated for any reason, even if it's the color of your shirt on that particular day. Does that make it "right"? Well, that's a perspective thing.

Working his network to help get a startup's first few customers at large, brand name companies? I'd hardly call that unproductive. In fact, if they iterate product dev on one of these customers, find that perfect product market fit, and scale; well, I'd say he played a roll in their success.

"Perhaps there were issues the OP is completely unaware of?"

The issue is the manner in which the OP was terminated. The company could be totally justified letting him go, just not in the manner in which they did it.

"you can be terminated for any reason... Does that make it "right"? Well, that's a perspective thing."

One, you can't be terminated for any reason.

Two, we are seeing the perspective of public opinion and unfortunately it is reflecting negatively on YC since people don't have a more specific target. Everyone has a 'right' to choose who they work for.

Three, getting terminated is a little more than just perspective. It is an event which can have significant repercussions for a person: mortgage payments, kid's school costs, etc.

How so? They decided he was not a good fit, by his own admission... so they cut him loose. Would you rather they hurt their business by keeping on employees who won't work out?

> One, you can't be terminated for any reason.

Yes you can. California has At-Will Employment. It means they can hire or fire for any reason, with or without notice, even if it's silly like they don't like where you eat lunch. On the same note, you can quit for any reason, without notice, even if it's silly like you don't like where the owners eat lunch.

> Yes you can. California has At-Will Employment. It means they can hire or fire for any reason

No, it means that the initial burden is on the person alleging illegal firing or not-hiring to establish a prima facie case that the reason was a prohibited reason, rather than the burden being the hiring/firing party to establish that the reason was a permitted reason.

It does not mean that hiring/firing for any reason is allowed. In fact, there are lots of prohibited reasons for firing in California.

It's just "default allow" when it comes to hiring/firing decisions.

Terminating based on say, race or sex, is however. That is very clearly not the case here.

Its not even a reason, its just a semantically empty phrase. But in any case, I didn't say there was a prohibited reason here, I said that the claim that "at-will employment" means you can hire or fire "for any reason" is false.

Again, we have one side of the story here, and with only one side, people are jumping to conclusions. What if the founders came on and said the OP lied about his qualifications? Letting emotions get in the way of business is a fast way to fail.

Quite frankly, and in your words, the OP "fucked up" by committing to a startup before even having a Visa he pointed out is/was important, and from the sound of it, may not have even been an official hire with contracts signed. He did work, and if he was an official hire, he would have already been paid for said work.

Being told you will be a COO is not the same as actually being the COO. That would be as-if I told a gardener I thought I might hire him, then come home one day and he's cut my yard and demands payment. If i was hired on as a COO with a startup, you bet my contract would have specific terms for which I may be terminated. Why did the OP not have something similar?

The bottom line -- it's nothing personal, it's business.

Startups are not big corps. They aren't going to do big corp things like severance. If that's not acceptable to you -- do not sign on with a startup. In a few months the OP will be in a new job and will look back on this as a learning experience - one that he will be a stronger individual from and perhaps more cautious in the future.

From the account given, he did do work remotely.

> may not have even been an official hire with contracts signed.

A contract generally doesn't need to be signed to be valid (there are specific exceptions to this, but employment contracts generally aren't exceptions), it can be oral, and, accepting the account given by the OP, offer, acceptance, and performance under the contract are all evident.

If the OP did actual work, and was not an official hire with either verbal or written contract, then he was an eager beaver and jumped-the-gun, which is understandable, but ultimately would be his mistake. (I refer back to my gardener example above).

People seem to be arguing the startup owes him some sort of severance -- which is ridiculous unless it was in his employment agreement.

The OP will look back on this and learn some valuable and long lasting lessons from this ordeal.

I think that we agree that the startup would be breaking the law. Where we disagree is that you seem to think that "It would be illegal, and therefore it didn't happen" is a valid line of reasoning.

I don't disagree that letting him go might have been the right decision for both parties, but to not compensate him properly for working his network to help get them some of their first customers, turning down other job offers, and actively working for the company? That's not right. They might have made a mistake in hiring him, but they definitely made a mistake in not adequately compensating him for his effort and explaining to him the reasons for the abrupt termination.

"At-Will Employment"

It doesn't allow termination for 'any reason' as other commenters have pointed out. And if CEOs and founders rely too much on this clause and don't behave ethically we could find ourselves in a position like France, where you can't fire anybody, a situation I hope we can avoid by professional conduct and respecting that it isn't just business, but people's lives.

Actually, it does mean "for any reason" (well, within the law, which would exclude things such as race or gender, but that is clearly not the case here). Furthermore, a reason of "this employee is not a good fit for our company because of reason X" is absolutely allowed. (Unless the OP had signed a contract that had termination terms, etc... doesn't seem like it).

> we could find ourselves in a position like France, where you can't fire anybody

This is what employment contracts are for, some companies will have terms for when a termination is satisfactory, and other times you can negotiate terms as part of your employment agreement.

We only have one side of this story, and a lot of emotions have been stirred because of it. Was the OP actually officially hired (as in he had salary or hourly compensation was was logging hours)? If not, then why was he already performing "work" by hitting up companies and investing his time? (Seems like a "jump-the-gun" mistake).

I'm really sorry this happened to the OP -- but it's not abnormal, and certainly isn't the first time a YC funded startup has had to pivot and cut employees that won't fit.

...getting terminated is a little more than just perspective. It is an event which can have significant repercussions for a person: mortgage payments...

This is the key issue. To be honest, even I am realising the impact this can have, only after it happened to me.

Financial: all plans made carefully, thoughtfully and intentionally are suddenly meaningless.

Personal: lot of awkward discussions :) friends, relatives, business acquaintances (e.g. I did the mistake of updating my LinkedIn - COO one day, and 14 days later deleted the "employment status". As someone pointed out, this is a first world problem - there are much worse things that can happen. I agree. But still, it really annoys me to explain myself to everyone who asks. Some even wonder, if I was "fired" :))

Work: searching for a job is not fun (at least for me), and having found something I love, commit to it (after much consideration) and then being yanked out of it so soon, felt cruel.

Come on. They didn't do anything wrong. They withdrew an offer of employment.

1. It could be performance related, and they just don't want to tell OP, 2. They realised quickly -- shock horror, things change quickly in startups -- that actually they don't need X guy they need Y guy. These things happen.

In situations like this you can fire well: give explicit reasons, make sure the person knows you're going to give them a great reference, consider paying them a notice period in excess of what you're obligated to. But really they didn't do anything wrong, and I don't think naming and shaming them is going to solve anything.

Doing this without compensation is ABSOLUTELY doing something wrong. Maybe not necessarily tortious, but certainly unethical and indicative of someone who should not be trusted in a business relationship. The YC company made a mistake and is sticking someone else with the bill.

FWIW, There's a certain amount of "foreigners are expendable" mindset that seems to exist in the American tech sphere that might factor into this situation as well...

The company paid me a 6 week severance, even though I never worked a minute for them, just to compensate me for what I had given up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel#Promissory_...

Not necessarily. What if a major investor pulled out and they aren't going to have the capital available to hire this guy? What if hiring him meant not paying people who had been promised salaries after working for free? What if they could have hired him but others would have had to be fired?

They certainly made a mistake, but we don't know why they did what they did. It's unlikely to be malicious "Let's just screw this guy", and far more likely to be for reasons that each one of us, if we were in their shoes, would consider to be very good.

They didn't withdraw an offer, they terminated someone who had accepted and was actively working for the company.

They didn't do anything wrong.

Yes, they did. Is it okay to let the OP go quickly because they made a mistake: no resources to deal with visa issues, wrong domain expertise, etc? Yes. Is it okay to do this without compensation, especially after rescinding other offers, working his personal network, etc? No!

The OP din't just do some code, he worked his professional network and went out on a limb for this startup. They screwed him, probably for the right reasons, but they need to admit the mistake and make the OP right.

Some in my network (former consulting clients and business friends) ended up buying the service. So the company benefited in a tangible way (real $'s). I worked as if this was "my company". So yeah, I do feel screwed for the reasons you say and more...

You're right. It's even worse for OP: he just got canned.

> Yes, they did. Is it okay to let the OP go quickly because they made a mistake: no resources to deal with visa issues, wrong domain expertise, etc? Yes.

Agreed.

> Is it okay to do this without compensation, especially after rescinding other offers, working his personal network, etc? No!

He took a job, and got fired. Every time you take a job you rescind other offers. Every time you get fired you probably look back and think "damn I wish I'd taken one of those other offers". The proximity is the issue here, and the insinuating that they could have known this earlier / not made the hire in the first place.

> The OP din't just do some code, he worked his professional network and went out on a limb for this startup.

He didn't go out on a limb, he had a job there as you point out. He was a salaried employee.

I thought the OP said they hired him and then 1 week in to working he was told he should leave.

If there was any package, like taking on the position would accrue shares and such then he's due that at least along with his weeks pay and his agreed/statutory notice period pay. The rest is probably down to local laws (both localities potentially if the company is operation in both).

I don't know anything about investing in startups but common sense would suggest that this would raise some red flags.

In this specific case the legal is likely very low. It's a startup and it's unlikely they have money to fund a lawsuit. Plus there's that whole "he's from another country" bit which would make collecting on a judgment pretty damn hard.

(That is not to suggest that talking to a lawyer first in these types of matters is a bad idea, of course.)

He might want YC to instruct other YC-backed companies to avoid this behavior in future, sparing other people this problem.

California has At-Will employment -- so they can hire and fire you for any reason whenever they want. "You weren't a good fit", "You didn't think Big enough", "You didn't produce enough", etc etc etc.

Coming on here and ranting and trying to bring some action against the startup is not a good way to handle this. You feel wronged -- I'm sure the founders feel it was a good business decision.

Sorry this happened to you... but Startups are very volatile. It could have been worse.

Legally? Sure.

Ethically? No.

> I'm sure the founders feel it was a good business decision.

The next founders who contemplate pulling a cowardly stunt like this shouldn't feel it to be a good business decision.

As it stands, this reflects terribly YC and its startups as a whole.

Hiring for first stage startups is critically important -- ie. it can make or break the company.

If the OP wasn't going to work out for any reason, then it was appropriate to cut him loose as soon as possible, instead of dragging it out.

One (not primary, but fairly clear) source:

http://www.cslaw.com/our-practice/san-francisco/employment-c...

Googling "california at-will good faith" will unearth much more.

Edit: more detail, including that this isn't specific to explicit employment contracts. Also, I'm in no way saying this case would fall under this, only that at-will isn't absolute in CA, even beyond the normal discrimination boundaries.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Breach+of+an+I...

Alupis is absolutely right, startups are volatile and it could have been worse. That this was legal means this was probably the only right option for the founders.

Making hires at an early stage is incredibly important, imagine this startup has only a few 100k in the bank. They can hire maybe two to three persons, and that's hoping they'll hit on more funding later in the year.

Imagine you were a founder of that company, and you had hire this COO, and then something changes, or a pivot comes through just when the COO is flown in. Your investors all say you should discharge him, so they can hire someone that might save the company.

How can you even suggest this is unethical? This guy goes work at a startup in a state where it is legal to fire someone at will.

All legal.

Maybe this business succeeds, maybe they fail (they are a startup, and most startups don't succeed).

But, the OP will always need a job. And quite frankly, getting upset over a termination and coming online and bringing major flak to the business is a sure-fire way to get the OP rejected out of any HM's stack if they know what they are doing. Why would I want to hire someone who has a history of flaming previous employers? It doesn't matter the reason they flamed the previous employers, it's the fact that they did it at all. That goes double for anyone who is trying to get hired into top executive positions, such as COO.

It's not personal, it's business... and if the OP can't distinguish between the two, then he's not ready for top level executive positions.