Courts understand that during a RIF, perfectly competent employees may lose their jobs. Any legitimate business reason can back up that decision. Just make sure you document the reason before you terminate anyone.
You never know which terminated employee will sue or for what. That’s why you should treat every layoff as a potential lawsuit. Defend yourself by doing all you can to help employees who may lose their jobs find other opportunities within the company.
Employees on FMLA leave are entitled to be left alone. Supervisors shouldn’t send work home with the employee or call constantly to check up. That could be considered FMLA leave interference. That doesn’t mean, however, that you can’t get in touch with the employee about important and urgent matters or enforce your broader call-in policies.
An electrician with 25 years of service to the Plano Independent School District has sued, alleging he was fired because of his age, not because the district needed to cut staff.
Some employees believe that any physical problems that linger after surgery or other medical treatment are disabilities that entitle them to ADA protection. That’s not true. Disabilities are permanent. Temporary, post-surgical problems don’t qualify.
When a company reorganizes and consolidates several positions into one, the resulting reduction in force (RIF) may affect an older employee. The employee who loses a job may feel the real reason is age and that the employer took advantage of a RIF to eliminate older workers. You can structure your RIFs to avoid losing an age discrimination claim.
A federal court considering the question for the first time has concluded that workers over a certain age can challenge the disparate impact a reduction in force may have on that age group.
Here’s something to keep in mind if you’re contemplating a reduction in force: If you plan to offer severance packages in exchange for a liability release, make sure you aren’t too selective about who gets the best deals.
Employers that are prepared to offer cold, hard facts to defend their decisions—even those that may look suspicious at first glance—rarely lose lawsuits. The more objective the business reasons you have for personnel decisions, the better off you are.