3 ms·

With at-will employment is a pip necessary? What happens if you fire someone who is performing?

nosefurhairdo 2y ago
People can take you to court for anything; pip is good way to protect against claims of wrongful termination. I agree in principle that at-will should make this unnecessary, but the reality of a litigious society makes pips a good move.
mikequinlan 2y ago
The issue is unemployment payments. In many states, if you fire someone without cause then you have to make the unemployment payments. If you fire with cause then you don't.
- lvgifirnejsjs 2y ago
  Most states in the United States will still provide unemployment payments for an employee terminated for performance. The company needs to prove a gross negligence level of employee conduct to deny unemployment. Things like not showing up to work or workplace sabotage.
chrisdhoover 2y ago
Yes. Some at will states support lawsuits
pkaye 2y ago
I've seen a few workers take the employer to court and the company usually settles as it doesn't want the reputational damage and court costs so they just pay up. People just assume the worst of the employers when these court cases become public if even it is later dismissed.
lvgifirnejsjs 2y ago
Specifically regarding at-will employment and the United States, you can still be sued for discrimination based on race, gender, and all other protected classes. PIPs and other similar processes are primarily created, from a legal/HR perspective, to protect against those lawsuits. So, somewhat counterintuitively, at-will employment in the United States(especially in states like California) is not actually at-will in a practical sense do to the threat of discrimination lawsuits.
- asdff 2y ago
  Funny how they are used as a cover to those lawsuits but at the same time anyone with half a brain can see how a racist could saddle someone with bogus pips. Someone must have brought this shaky pip defence in front of the right corporate favoring judge if everyone is using it as this ironclad defense now.

People can take you to court for anything; pip is good way to protect against claims of wrongful termination. I agree in principle that at-will should make this unnecessary, but the reality of a litigious society makes pips a good move.

mikequinlan 2y ago

The issue is unemployment payments. In many states, if you fire someone without cause then you have to make the unemployment payments. If you fire with cause then you don't.

lvgifirnejsjs 2y ago
Most states in the United States will still provide unemployment payments for an employee terminated for performance. The company needs to prove a gross negligence level of employee conduct to deny unemployment. Things like not showing up to work or workplace sabotage.

chrisdhoover 2y ago

Yes. Some at will states support lawsuits

pkaye 2y ago

I've seen a few workers take the employer to court and the company usually settles as it doesn't want the reputational damage and court costs so they just pay up. People just assume the worst of the employers when these court cases become public if even it is later dismissed.

lvgifirnejsjs 2y ago

Specifically regarding at-will employment and the United States, you can still be sued for discrimination based on race, gender, and all other protected classes. PIPs and other similar processes are primarily created, from a legal/HR perspective, to protect against those lawsuits. So, somewhat counterintuitively, at-will employment in the United States(especially in states like California) is not actually at-will in a practical sense do to the threat of discrimination lawsuits.

asdff 2y ago
Funny how they are used as a cover to those lawsuits but at the same time anyone with half a brain can see how a racist could saddle someone with bogus pips. Someone must have brought this shaky pip defence in front of the right corporate favoring judge if everyone is using it as this ironclad defense now.