Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've followed the procedure a couple of times. As a manager, it was quite a bit of work, with useless HR people giving ME a Propofol-free colonoscopy that instead I would give headhunters the name of the employee I wanted to get rid of. It usually worked.
I didn't realize it went that far. I thought that if the person was a minority or over 50, the company could really have a fight on their hands, but if it was a Caucasian person in his/her 20's or 30's, they can basically do what they want. I don't know if you saw my example before. I worked at a company and 3 people in my department were fired while I was there. One was a Caucasian woman in her 20's and she was fired after only about 8 months for performance and attendance issues. Another one was a Caucasian man in his 30's. He was there about 10 months and fired for performance issues. Neither seemed like a big deal. The other was an African-American woman. That woman had been there over 6 years and there were documented performance issues as well as issues and conflicts with co workers. Supposedly she was nasty and abusive. They had moved her a couple of times and she didn't do a good job in any of the roles she had. The bottom line is you have to really document and have your ducks in a row with a person like that, but in the end, you cannot let that person run the company. Finally I think the CEO decided it was time for her to go. I don't know if they gave her any severance or not.
Last edited by RRussoNJ1991; 04-05-2023 at 12:33 PM..
Regarding shopping on the internet, most companies have a "Fair Use Policy" regarding company resources of the internet, telephones, office photocopiers and the like. As long as you do your job and your use of the internet during office hours is modest, you're OK. Most companies also have software that finds ways to measure your use of the internet for shopping. So in the above hypothetical interchange, it would go:
"So she satisfied all the requirements of her position?"
"Yes."
"And she performed her job well?"
"Yes."
"So why did you fire her?"
"She was warned 3 separate times she was in violation of the Fair Use Policy because during 3 separate weeks she averaged 24.5 hours per week on the following websites: eBay, Amazon, Macy's, Chico's, Dillard's, Target, Walmart, Costco, Carnival Cruise Lines, United Airlines, Home Depot, Lowes, Uber, Chase, City-Data, Twitter, Pinterest, Facebook, and My Space."
I recall at my former employer, an IT director went to a VP of Finance to tell her she had contractors onsite who were spending all their time on eBay, told the VP of Finance to terminate those contractors for violation of fair use policy.
The VP of finance examined it, and told the IT director, "Those contractors are not really contractors per se. They are not on our payroll. They have contractor badges to get in the building and have unrestricted use of everything because they are IRS Agents who audit the company's tax returns. We don't manage them, and we can't touch them."
Exactly. My boss is actually like that. He actually said to me not long after I started, "I don't care if you go on the internet. I go on too. As long as you're not looking at porn and as long as you're not abusing the privilege. You're getting all your work done accurately and on time, so you're obviously not spending too much time on the internet. There are always times when we're not busy." I don't think there are many employees who can honestly say they never go on the internet.
While a company does not have to state why, the EEOC will examine any layoff and in particular examine the demographics of the effected workers. If there is a disproportionate impact on any protected class, there has to be a lot of explaining to do - and the EEOC is not shy about initiating litigation.
Protected classes of employees include women, BIPOC, LGBTQ+, veterans, and everyone over the age of 40.
Non-protected employees: cis white males under the age of 40.
During the run-up to the layoff, the employer's HR legal department scours each person who is slated to be laid off.
On more than one occasion, HR legal will instruct a department that they must de-select individuals targeted to be laid off, as there are too many women, BIPIC, LGBTQ+, veterans, and over-the-age-of-40 people being targeted relative to the population of the company as a whole and relative to the population of the surrounding communities. Why? Risk of litigation from employees or the EEOC.
In that case, management swaps out the protected class person and swaps in a non-protected person (e.g., a straight white male).
Sometimes the company goes ahead with the layoff regardless. For example, an entire division might be closed, and the employees of that division might have a disproportionate population of protected-class individuals - but the economics are such that the entire division is shuttered, period. Litigation may ensue, but the likelihood of the company prevailing is high.
In the case of a 67 year old a few months away from retirement being fired, there must be more to the story, as that is a lawsuit looking for the spot marked X. There is almost assuredly a well documented paper trail of progressive disciplinary actions, a single egregious incident for a senior manager, lack of confidence for an executive, or the like.
Or, perhaps the company is just stupid and deserves an EEOC inquiry/litigation.
One thing his former employer has going for it is that they hired your former colleague when he was age 60 and already a member of a protected class. That is evidence the company does not discriminate on the basis of age. A strike against the company is they have not coached the employee - he had no idea it was coming.
I hired someone who was age 60. I had to fire her 2 years later. She couldn't do the job. She had been given ample coaching. She was relieved when I fired her, saying she had expected it as the job was over her head. It was a bad hire on my part.
While possible, it is also possible he is lying to you in order to save face.
If he truly had no idea why he was fired, that's really bad management. There should never be any surprise regarding termination, lack-of-pay-raise, performance evaluation, etc. If there is a surprise, the manager wasn't doing his/her job.
I'm betting there is more to the story. While I never heard him make any overtly sexual comments, he has made many comments to women along the lines of "you look nice today." He had been very unhappy with the job for quite awhile. He ended up with many of my former responsibilities, and it was clear he couldn't handle it - he'd frequently text me questions.
With that said, the CEO had promised 4% COLAs for "meets expectations" and above reviews across the organization. No one I know got more than 1%. They may all just be terrible - I don't know.
I'm betting there is more to the story. While I never heard him make any overtly sexual comments, he has made many comments to women along the lines of "you look nice today." He had been very unhappy with the job for quite awhile. He ended up with many of my former responsibilities, and it was clear he couldn't handle it - he'd frequently text me questions.
With that said, the CEO had promised 4% COLAs for "meets expectations" and above reviews across the organization. No one I know got more than 1%. They may all just be terrible - I don't know.
You have to love how nowadays saying "You look nice" to a female co worker is sexual harassment. I get it's not like Mad Men today, but really.
I'm confused as to why an employer who abuses and takes advantage of employees and creates a work environment of just short of the legal definition of hostile should be protected? In this situation it's not job candidates who should be censured.
I suspect that a lot of people have differing attitudes based on upbringing and experience. Someone who has seen a policy get abused by employees is likely to side with an employer, and someone who has seen a control-freak employer is likely to side with employees. When ambiguous situations present themselves, people tend to use their own experience to "fill in the gaps".
I suspect that a lot of people have differing attitudes based on upbringing and experience. Someone who has seen a policy get abused by employees is likely to side with an employer, and someone who has seen a control-freak employer is likely to side with employees. When ambiguous situations present themselves, people tend to use their own experience to "fill in the gaps".
This brings me back to the importance of severance packages. In the event a employee suit goes to trial, the jury will be comprised of 8 to 12 people who will ultimately use their own experience to help fill in the gaps. Considering most people in the U.S. are workers, there experience is likely includes some level of negativity towards an employer. Doesn't matter if it's rural Alabama or New York City.
You have to love how nowadays saying "You look nice" to a female co worker is sexual harassment. I get it's not like Mad Men today, but really.
Well it's only harassment if they find the guy unattractive
In seriousness, what constitutes harassment can change with the eras. Further complicating matters, it will vary based upon individual. With this ambiguity, I found it best to only complement female coworkers whom I've developed an actual friendship or close working relationship when it comes to matters such as appearance. Never been sent to HR so I guess it’s working lol.
This brings me back to the importance of severance packages. In the event a employee suit goes to trial, the jury will be comprised of 8 to 12 people who will ultimately use their own experience to help fill in the gaps. Considering most people in the U.S. are workers, there experience is likely includes some level of negativity towards an employer. Doesn't matter if it's rural Alabama or New York City.
Exactly. In the example of the 67 year old man, the person who knew him doubted he got any severance. I doubt that. If you were the employer, and the 2 options are A-offer him a severance package in exchange for him signing a separation agreement and B-not offering him a severance package and just firing him and having to worry about an age discrimination claim, most would probably choose A. The cost of the severance is probably less than the time and aggravation of having to deal with an age discrimination claim.
In my example of the African American woman, I don't know if they gave her severance. They had a long paper trail of write ups and counseling over 6 years as well as moving her a couple of time. I don't think she would have a leg to stand on at that point. I am a Caucasian male. I doubt I would have lasted 6 years if I had that many write ups for performance as well as my attitude. I doubt they would have moved me to a different role twice. So they gave her more chances than they gave other people.
Last edited by RRussoNJ1991; 04-06-2023 at 11:38 AM..
Well it's only harassment if they find the guy unattractive
In seriousness, what constitutes harassment can change with the eras. Further complicating matters, it will vary based upon individual. With this ambiguity, I found it best to only complement female coworkers whom I've developed an actual friendship or close working relationship when it comes to matters such as appearance. Never been sent to HR so I guess it’s working lol.
I don't think saying "You look nice" to a female co worker is harassment in and of itself. It is in the eye of the beholder. I remember working with a female co worker who would call people pet names like Honey and Sweetie. I could care less about that. But there was a male coworker wo took offense at that and went to HR and HR had to get involved. I'm sure there are plenty of female employees who could care less if a male said "You look nice." If the coworker does not like it and says, "Please don't say that again," and you say, "I am so sorry," and do not say it again, all good. It becomes harassment if you keep saying it.
I guess a company upholding a good reputation by acting, I dunno - honest, ethical and responsible - is just too crazy of a concept to consider. If you have to bribe people to keep quiet, perhaps you know about the skeletons in the closet?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
