Our HR Professionals provide support for thousands of terminations throughout the year, most of which involve typical “run-of-the-mill” offenses. Surprisingly, there are always a handful of cases where the employee’s conduct shocks us, and we’re left wondering how someone could actually act that way at work. Click here to read about the top five shockers from 2018..*

Read more (Opens in a new window)

Henry has worked for your company for over a decade and, until recently, has been a good performer. However, over the past six months, Henry’s performance has started to slide.

You have talked to Henry about your observations with his performance on several occasions, but you did not document any of these conversations. During your conversations, Henry admitted that his performance has slipped and that he has been making several mistakes. Each time, Henry promises he will improve, but he hasn’t shown any improvement.

Last week, Henry asked for a few days off to attend a convention for his church. While he was out, you discovered he had failed to complete a project by the deadline, negatively impacting a customer.

Based on his decline in performance and the recently discovered error, you decide to terminate Henry.

Yesterday, you were shocked when you received a charge from the EEOC claiming discrimination based on religion. You didn’t fire Henry because of his religion. Henry was fired because he wasn’t doing his job.

You tried to explain that to the EEOC. Likely, the EEOC responded:

1. They completely understood. Once you explained the course of events, they could understand why Henry needed to be terminated and dismissed the charge.
2. They asked you and Henry’s supervisor a lot of questions. It seemed like they were looking for ways that you’d discriminated against him. Making implications that you didn’t feel were accurate. You didn’t feel it went well and you don’t know what will happen next.
3. They asked to see documentation of Henry’s performance problems. They wanted to see the evidence that you’d talked to him about his poor performance. They asked if Henry was disciplined for his poor performance, in writing. They asked a lot of questions about his absence and why you terminated Henry immediately following his return to work. In the end, the EEOC concluded you had discriminated against Henry and his termination was retaliation for taking time off to attend a church conference.

View the answer (Opens in a new window).