3 ms·

> there is practically no such thing as wrongful termination in the US. This is true. However, there is nothing also that stops individuals from filing costly

> there is practically no such thing as wrongful termination in the US. This is true. However, there is nothing also that stops individuals from filing costly "wrongful termination suits" against a company. In my little slice of the managerial world, we spend time with HR to fully document performance lapses, ensuring we have written statements clearly indicating expectations and whether they are met, solely because if we were to be sued, we could show enough evidence that this individual was terminated because of a lack of performance, despite being given reasonable time to take corrective measures.

tptacek 11y ago
If you believe this, it's not safe to fire anyone --- all of them could "file costly wrongful termination suits". In fact, "wrongful termination" doesn't mean "terminated unfairly". It means "terminated unlawfully". In the US, unlawful termination occurs: * When it contravenes an explicit clause in your employment contract or an implied contract you accidentally created. * When it has the effect of discriminating against a protected class. * When it violates the ADA. Employers in the US generally have no obligation whatsoever to provide "reasonable time to take corrective measures". Things like PIPs have two purposes: * As an attempt to bulletproof firings that target ostensible members of a protected class * As a humane / bloodless way of notifying employees that they're about to be fired and should start looking for a new job.
- balls187 11y ago
  > Employers in the US generally have no [legal] obligation whatsoever to provide "reasonable time to take corrective measures". They do, however, want to CYA. > In fact, "wrongful termination" doesn't mean "terminated unfairly". It means "terminated unlawfully". And "unlawfully" is determined by the US Courts. > If you believe this, it's not safe to fire anyone --- all of them could "file costly wrongful termination suits". If by "safe" you mean "safe from litigation" then yes, that is a risk you take when terminating an employee. I'm certainly not advocating against firing people. I am saying that in my experience, I have to work with HR to have sufficient documentation.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Can you point to the law you're concerned might be violated in this scenario?
    - balls187 11y ago
      No law that I can think of. Maybe some sort of edge gender discrimination, or perhaps in case this guy is some nymphomaniac and has a documented mental condition. Speculating wildly.
    - balls187 11y ago
      We're assuming the business dev person is not a protected class (basically your run-of-the-mill white bro). He could be a veteran, or a minority, or disabled.
- illumin8 11y ago
  Many large companies use PIPs as a default for poor performance prior to firing. The frustrating thing about it is that a poor performing worker, who shows up at the office, but does zero work, is likely to bounce around in the PIP system for 12-18 months, collecting a paycheck, before you can terminate them. If they're smart enough to do the bare minimum to satisfy the PIP, they can go back to doing nothing once the PIP is over and repeat this cycle for a few years before they eventually get terminated. The reason large companies do this for everyone is that over 50% of the population is a protected class (female, minority, veteran, etc), and large companies want to reduce all risk as much as possible, so therefore, you get mandatory PIPs. Something egregious like this (sexual harassment) definitely warrants an immediate termination. Unfortunately, I've worked on teams with members that did zero work and had an 18 month PIP. It kills morale in unique and incredible ways for the rest of the team.
  - balls187 11y ago
    > Something egregious like this (sexual harassment) definitely warrants an immediate termination. Why should one incident that occurred outside of work, warrant termination? Are our private lives subject to the scrutiny of our employer? Is it sexual harassment if the victim doesn't actually feel harassed?
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Yes, if your private life involves making unwelcome and rude sexual advances to other employees, it warrants immediate termination. Employees who do this present a grave risk to the company in terms of legal expense, PR, and recruiting.
      - balls187 11y ago
        Generally, I agree with what your statement. If you sexually harass others in your personal life, and your employer finds out about it, it's prudent to manage them out. In this case, the employee handled the unwanted advances herself, and later told the OP about it. It's not clear if the female employee felt that it was "rude sexual advance" since to her it was "no big deal." From the EEOC: > Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > As an attempt to bulletproof firings that target ostensible members of a protected class This is phrased poorly -- everyone is a member of (several) protected class, since a protected class is an axis on which discrimination is illegal. Race is a protected class (not just particular races), color is a protected class (not just particular colors, and distinctly from race), religion is a protected class, sex (not just one sex) is a protected class, and so on. And, in addition to anti-discrimination protected classes, there are all kinds of other prohibited bases for firing (e.g., retaliation for invoking various legally-protected workplace rights such as family/medical leave, etc., or reporting violations of workplace protection, such as wage/hour rules and occupational safety rules.) PIPs are a tool for documenting reasons for firing to support that they were not for any unlawful reasons would be a more accurate phrasing than saying that they are a means of protecting firings that target "ostensible members of a protected class".
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Sure. You're right, this isn't worded well (I wrote it in several successive edits). I'd write it differently now: PIPs have just two purposes: 1. As a CYA mechanism to avoid discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims. 2. As a socially acceptable means of informing employees that they should begin a new job search.

tptacek 11y ago

If you believe this, it's not safe to fire anyone --- all of them could "file costly wrongful termination suits". In fact, "wrongful termination" doesn't mean "terminated unfairly". It means "terminated unlawfully". In the US, unlawful termination occurs: * When it contravenes an explicit clause in your employment contract or an implied contract you accidentally created. * When it has the effect of discriminating against a protected class. * When it violates the ADA. Employers in the US generally have no obligation whatsoever to provide "reasonable time to take corrective measures". Things like PIPs have two purposes: * As an attempt to bulletproof firings that target ostensible members of a protected class * As a humane / bloodless way of notifying employees that they're about to be fired and should start looking for a new job.

balls187 11y ago
> Employers in the US generally have no [legal] obligation whatsoever to provide "reasonable time to take corrective measures". They do, however, want to CYA. > In fact, "wrongful termination" doesn't mean "terminated unfairly". It means "terminated unlawfully". And "unlawfully" is determined by the US Courts. > If you believe this, it's not safe to fire anyone --- all of them could "file costly wrongful termination suits". If by "safe" you mean "safe from litigation" then yes, that is a risk you take when terminating an employee. I'm certainly not advocating against firing people. I am saying that in my experience, I have to work with HR to have sufficient documentation.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Can you point to the law you're concerned might be violated in this scenario?
  - balls187 11y ago
    No law that I can think of. Maybe some sort of edge gender discrimination, or perhaps in case this guy is some nymphomaniac and has a documented mental condition. Speculating wildly.
  - balls187 11y ago
    We're assuming the business dev person is not a protected class (basically your run-of-the-mill white bro). He could be a veteran, or a minority, or disabled.
illumin8 11y ago
Many large companies use PIPs as a default for poor performance prior to firing. The frustrating thing about it is that a poor performing worker, who shows up at the office, but does zero work, is likely to bounce around in the PIP system for 12-18 months, collecting a paycheck, before you can terminate them. If they're smart enough to do the bare minimum to satisfy the PIP, they can go back to doing nothing once the PIP is over and repeat this cycle for a few years before they eventually get terminated. The reason large companies do this for everyone is that over 50% of the population is a protected class (female, minority, veteran, etc), and large companies want to reduce all risk as much as possible, so therefore, you get mandatory PIPs. Something egregious like this (sexual harassment) definitely warrants an immediate termination. Unfortunately, I've worked on teams with members that did zero work and had an 18 month PIP. It kills morale in unique and incredible ways for the rest of the team.
- balls187 11y ago
  > Something egregious like this (sexual harassment) definitely warrants an immediate termination. Why should one incident that occurred outside of work, warrant termination? Are our private lives subject to the scrutiny of our employer? Is it sexual harassment if the victim doesn't actually feel harassed?
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Yes, if your private life involves making unwelcome and rude sexual advances to other employees, it warrants immediate termination. Employees who do this present a grave risk to the company in terms of legal expense, PR, and recruiting.
    - balls187 11y ago
      Generally, I agree with what your statement. If you sexually harass others in your personal life, and your employer finds out about it, it's prudent to manage them out. In this case, the employee handled the unwanted advances herself, and later told the OP about it. It's not clear if the female employee felt that it was "rude sexual advance" since to her it was "no big deal." From the EEOC: > Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
dragonwriter 11y ago
> As an attempt to bulletproof firings that target ostensible members of a protected class This is phrased poorly -- everyone is a member of (several) protected class, since a protected class is an axis on which discrimination is illegal. Race is a protected class (not just particular races), color is a protected class (not just particular colors, and distinctly from race), religion is a protected class, sex (not just one sex) is a protected class, and so on. And, in addition to anti-discrimination protected classes, there are all kinds of other prohibited bases for firing (e.g., retaliation for invoking various legally-protected workplace rights such as family/medical leave, etc., or reporting violations of workplace protection, such as wage/hour rules and occupational safety rules.) PIPs are a tool for documenting reasons for firing to support that they were not for any unlawful reasons would be a more accurate phrasing than saying that they are a means of protecting firings that target "ostensible members of a protected class".
- tptacek 11y ago
  Sure. You're right, this isn't worded well (I wrote it in several successive edits). I'd write it differently now: PIPs have just two purposes: 1. As a CYA mechanism to avoid discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims. 2. As a socially acceptable means of informing employees that they should begin a new job search.