>The offer letter he received, which was in English, stated clearly the “at will” nature of the contract
Just because you write something in a contract does not make it so. Labor laws exist for a reason, and chances are that the "at will" nature of the contract would have not been cause if you had fired him after the three-month trial period.
As someone who has flown halfway across the world for a job, I feel for Andreas (luckily for me things have turned out better than for him). The thing I'm trying to figure out is not only whether what happened was legal, but also whether what you did was, for lack of a better phrase, a dick move.
I can understand that hiring people can be difficult to get right. But if you ask someone to move to a different for you, if you decide it's not right in the end, not giving them some sort of severance (even if it's just 2 weeks pay) doesn't seem like the "startup" thing to do.
I've only been on the employee side of the relationship, so there might be things I'm not seeing. But if you hired 8 people in the same period (and you weren't planning on firing the guy from the outset), I can't see it being a cash flow problem. That money could be considered part of hiring costs, and the professional relationship could terminate as amicably as possible.
I don't think you really get credit for 'treating him with respect', if (according to your description) you seem to have caught him by surprise by letting him go immediately. Most people can't find jobs on a 24 hour notice. Loaning him money to help pay for rent is cool, but should also have been a sign to you that maybe he didn't have much money to deal with becoming jobless.
I can understand letting him go if he didn't fit the team. I can't understand letting him go after uprooting him without helping him transition back.
Just because you write something in a contract does not make it so. Labor laws exist for a reason, and chances are that the "at will" nature of the contract would have not been cause if you had fired him after the three-month trial period.
As someone who has flown halfway across the world for a job, I feel for Andreas (luckily for me things have turned out better than for him). The thing I'm trying to figure out is not only whether what happened was legal, but also whether what you did was, for lack of a better phrase, a dick move.
I can understand that hiring people can be difficult to get right. But if you ask someone to move to a different for you, if you decide it's not right in the end, not giving them some sort of severance (even if it's just 2 weeks pay) doesn't seem like the "startup" thing to do.
I've only been on the employee side of the relationship, so there might be things I'm not seeing. But if you hired 8 people in the same period (and you weren't planning on firing the guy from the outset), I can't see it being a cash flow problem. That money could be considered part of hiring costs, and the professional relationship could terminate as amicably as possible.
I don't think you really get credit for 'treating him with respect', if (according to your description) you seem to have caught him by surprise by letting him go immediately. Most people can't find jobs on a 24 hour notice. Loaning him money to help pay for rent is cool, but should also have been a sign to you that maybe he didn't have much money to deal with becoming jobless.
I can understand letting him go if he didn't fit the team. I can't understand letting him go after uprooting him without helping him transition back.