Los Angeles HR professional promised full-time role after manager, HR head and HRIS specialist quit; now faces early termination unless she trains her replacement

Promised a full-time role after HR team resigns amid bankruptcy

The user explained that shortly after joining the company, their direct manager resigned. In the months that followed, both the HR manager and HRIS specialist also left, leaving the poster as the only HR support during what they described as a highly unstable period.

Despite the lack of leadership and resources, the user said they continued managing their responsibilities independently. Just two days before the company’s Christmas break, they were allegedly informed that their contract would be extended and that they were being considered for a full-time role.

After Christmas break her replacement was hired without notice

According to the post, when the user returned to work on December 29, they discovered that a new employee had been hired to perform their role. That same day, a new manager reportedly told them that if they refused to train the replacement, their contract would be terminated immediately, and they would not be paid for the remaining 30 days of their assignment.

While acknowledging that California is an at-will employment state, the user questioned whether it was legal to threaten early termination or nonpayment unless they agreed to train their replacement, especially after being told days earlier that their contract would be extended.

‘Train your replacement or leave today’: Ultimatum invoked legal questions

Several Reddit users pushed back, saying the situation likely did not qualify as wrongful termination under California law. One top commenter noted that unless a contract extension had been formally signed, verbal assurances did not carry legal weight.

“If nothing was signed about a contract extension, then it was just talk,” one commenter wrote, adding that the legality would depend on the specific terms of the original contract and whether it included a clause requiring “other duties as assigned.”

Refusal to train seen as refusal to work, others argue

Other commenters argued that refusing to train a new hire could be considered refusing a job duty, which could justify early termination under most employment contracts. “You refused to do a duty you were assigned,” another top commenter said, adding that it would be unusual for an HR-related contract not to include flexibility for additional tasks.

When the original poster clarified that they had not taken on anyone else’s work even after staff departures, commenters maintained their stance. The consensus among Reddit users was that the case would only qualify as wrongful termination if the contract explicitly stated that the employee could not be assigned additional duties such as training a replacement.

“Nevertheless,” one commenter concluded, “you don’t have a wrongful termination case unless your contract specifies you don’t have to take on any additional duties. That’s the key issue.”