Yes, You Can Fire That Guy!

January 6, 2023

Processes, Procedures, Practices, and Protocols Are Kings

By Tanzania Cannon-Eckerle, Esq.


In this new, enlightened era of increased employee rights and employee shortages, many employers are scared to terminate employees in fear of litigation — or of not having enough staff to enable the company to produce at the desired level.


The second question we can save for later, but I will mention now that additional widgets will most likely never justify the havoc that a toxic employee will create.


In my opinion, the answer to the first question is simple: do not fear what you cannot control. You cannot control who goes down to the courthouse to file a complaint. Just be prepared for the battle.


So, yes, you can fire that guy (or girl, or them). The question is, should you?

 

Don’t Shoot Before Aiming — Consider Your Goal First

Don’t respond emotionally or consider someone else’s emotional response. Stop and think. Ask, why is this employee on the chopping block (i.e., what did they allegedly do)? How did they get there (was the proper process followed)? Who placed them there (who is bringing this up? Does the person have the authority to raise this issue? Anything nefarious here)?


Notice that I did not ask ‘who’ this employee is. We don’t assess the ‘who’ on the chopping block. It doesn’t matter who did it. It matters what was done, why it was done, whether it was actually done, and whether it rises to the level of termination.


Essentially, assess the conduct. What do you hope to attain by terminating this employee? A safer workplace? Good. To stop disruptions in operations or the beginnings of a hostile work environment? Good. Now prove it.

 

Prove It (in Preparation for the Battle)

If you can’t prove it, abort the mission. Go back to the drawing board. Go to plan B. Joking aside, preparing for appropriate employee terminations is a long game. It starts with consistent application of procedures, processes, policies, and practices. Probably the most important thing is documentation.


Consistent application of the ‘four Ps’ over time may take an investment of time and money into creating them if you don’t already have them, and training managers and supervisors in the art of holding employees accountable.


Among other things, there should be consistent application of all conduct and performance-related policies. There should be consistent application of all of the policies, procedures, and practices associated with managing human-resources functions such as leaves of absence and request for accommodations, as well as employee complaints made and investigated.


All of these should contain a component that enables tracking the underlying data and providing the ability to obtain and distribute the underlying information that supports assertions made. So you want to terminate an employee because he has been to work only seven out of 19 days, and on the seventh day he violated a safety policy and then stole your candy bar? You should be able to show documentation of these occurrences that were created in real time — including, of course, when the company had the initial conversation with him for being absent the first few times, checking to make sure it wasn’t actually a protected leave of absence.


Once you have the documentation, sit him down and tell him that he is being terminated from the job because of his inability to perform and because of his violation of the attendance policy. Have a witness. If you don’t have the documentation, sit him down, put him on notice that he is in the line of fire, and start documenting. Provide him with expectations, and then document it thereafter. Most likely, this will just delay the inevitable, but you never know. Regardless, at least you will have something to take with you into battle.


Make the Business Decision Informed by the Data, and Document It

Please know, you can terminate an employee for any reason at any time so long as it is not an illegal reason. That means you cannot terminate because of an employee’s protected status or activity or in a manner inconsistent with a collective bargaining agreement or other employment agreement.

As such, if you want to terminate a person for business reasons that have nothing to do with the person and everything to do with your business needs, that is OK too. But you should prove it. Do you have the data to back up your decision? You don’t have to have it, but if that person files a complaint, you will want it, and you will want to be able to attest that the business analysis was done prior to the termination. Otherwise, they will scream ‘pretext,’ meaning you just made that up. Plus, doing the analysis first may help you assess the risks of terminating an employee for business reasons.


There are always risks. Is it cheaper to keep him after assessing those risks, or not? That is a legitimate fiscal business concern. There are risks associated with not terminating employees as well. Be sure to document those, too — not just in the business case (e.g., budget concerns), but also in the ‘do I have enough to terminate this employee for conduct?’ case. Some examples: if I don’t terminate, there will be allegations that I did not maintain a harassment-free workplace; or, I terminated another employee for this same behavior last year, and there is no legitimate reason distinguishing this employee from being terminated for the same; or, he keeps violating safety procedures, and someone may get hurt.

 

Terminate with Grace and Pay What You Owe

Be respectful to all employees, including those who are coming and going. He knows what he did to get terminated (if you have done it right). There is no legitimate reason to be rude about it.

Terminating with dignity or grace does not mean that you should not terminate an employee. Once an employee gets to termination, he should have already had an opportunity to cure the conduct or behavior for which he is getting terminated. As such, by the time the writing is on the wall, he should not be surprised. If he is, that might partly explain why he is getting terminated.


Next, make sure you reach out to your employment counsel for assistance with properly preparing a termination package (necessary correspondence, pay requirements, and timing considerations). A misstep here can get you in hot water — triple hot water. Failure to pay an employee what is due at termination has no defense, and the remedy to the employee includes three times the wages due. Call your counsel before terminating.


I know this article is not going to make me popular among some folks. I am not trying to be cold. I am just being practical. Your employees are your life force. I get it. I am one. But they are also human capital. If you manage your human capital like you manage your non-human capital, then you should be able to terminate employees without fear.


Processes, procedures, practices, and protocols are kings. Remember, keeping a toxic employee is more costly, in a variety of ways, than the cost of defending a claim — that is, if you have your ducks in a row. So get your ducks in a row. Plus, the remainder of your staff will appreciate the decision. Heck, the terminated employee may appreciate it in time; sometimes it just isn’t a good fit. Cut them free to find their better role. In the case of the business decision, your shareholders or business partners will appreciate your fiscal responsibility.

 

This article was published in the most recent edition of BusinessWest. Click here to visit.

When Bias Creeps into Independent Investigations It All Becomes Tainted.

April 25, 2025
Case Overview: An Asian-American postal worker, Dawn Lui, allegedly became the target of a racial and gender-based harassment campaign after being assigned to lead a new location in 2014. Lui started working at the United States Postal Service (USPS) in 1992 and was promoted to postmaster in 2004, without issue or complaints. Both Lui and her supervisor agree that the coworkers at her new location called her racially motivated names, created false complaints and racially based rumors like that she couldn’t read or speak English, and created a rumor that she was engaging in a sexual relationship with her supervisor. Lui states that she was interviewed in an internal investigation about the alleged sexual relationship. She believes the allegations were created because the supervisor in question is married to an Asian woman. The supervisor claims that HR disregarded his complaints about racial bias regarding the employee. Where They Went Wrong: HR and labor relations officials proposed a demotion for Lui based off of the contested allegations. The demotion required Lui’s supervisor’s signature to move forward. The supervisor refused to sign the demotion and again brought up his concerns that the allegations were baseless and racially motivated. Because of his refusal to sign the demotion paperwork, he was temporarily removed from his position and replaced. His replacement signed off on the demotion and an investigation was not launched after the supervisor’s refusal. Lui appealed the demotion internally and a “neutral” official started an “independent” investigation. USPS argued that this investigation cleared them of making racial and sex based discriminatory actions. Given the possible racial bias and demotion that occurred in this case, Lui filed suit against USPS alleging disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, and unlawful retaliation under Title VII. After the United States District Court for the District of Washington granted summary judgment to USPS on all of the Plaintiff’s claims, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the USDC’s granting of summary judgment on the retaliation claim, but they found the USDC erred in their finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination when they issued summary judgment on the disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims. The Ninth Circuit found that Lui had been removed from her position and demoted to a smaller location with a pay cut, and she was replaced by a white man with less experience. The Ninth Circuit also found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the decision to demote Lui was independent or influenced by subordinate bias. The official never interviewed witnesses, ignored the reports about racial bias, and solely went off the existing reports used in the original decision. The concerns that the employee’s supervisor raised that the allegations were fabricated and racially motived had not been investigated or addressed. The court ruled that a jury could reasonably find that the “independent” investigation wasn’t truly independent. The Court relied heavily on the Cat’s Paw theory of liability. The Cat’s Paw Theory is an employment discrimination doctrine name after the fable “the Monkey and the Cat” by Jean de La Fontaine. In the fable the cat is enticed by the monkey to retrieve chestnuts from the embers of a fire so they both can share. In the fable the monkey eats the chestnuts while the cat has nothing but burned paws. It came to refer to someone doing dirty work on another’s behalf. It made its way into employment law in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.C. 411 (2011). An employer can be held liable for discrimination if the information used in the employment decision was based off a biased supervisor, or other biased employee. Even if the ultimate decision maker was not biased, the information remains tainted. Employer Takeaways: Independent investigations are only independent when an independent investigator re-reviews the information available and interviews witness(es) directly. Having an investigator blindly sign off on an investigation that others allege to be racially motivated without due diligence to verify a lack of bias allows bias to seep into employment decisions. If a separate investigation had been conducted, with fresh interviews from a non-biased 3 rd party, the decision would have been free of the original allegations, and the employer would have avoided liability in subsequent suit. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Royal Law at Thunderbirds Hockey Playoff Game in the Executive Perch

April 21, 2025
Friday April 18th: Amy Royal, Fred Royal, and Derek Brown attended the Springfield Thunderbirds playoff game! They enjoyed watching the Thunderbirds play the Charlotte Checkers from the Executive Perch.