Trait-related dismissals are based on indisputable characteristics of the employee, such as color of skin or physical disability. Trait-related terminations may be legal if the employer can prove that the trait keeps the employee from performing a job satisfactorily (Reed et al.2005). In order to ensure no legal ramifications, the senior manager has determined that the decision should be behavior related and take into account the employment laws, the extenuating regulatory circumstances, their performance and significance to FastServe Inc. future.
The employees in consideration for termination are Brian Carter, Carl Haimes, Jenny Mills, Nora Manson, and Sarah Boyd. They have been employed for two years and with the exception of Carl, they all have absenteeism problems.
Brian Carter is a contract employee who holds an advance programming certificate and was solely responsible for the programming online. His supervisor advised upon closure of the channels, his skills would be redundant. The extenuating circumstance is that he has been diagnosed with carpal syndrome which maybe caused by his job assignment. His absenteeism has reportedly been because of his injury. The medical report is due tomorrow (UOP, 2007).
Carl Haimes is a contract employee and has a Bachelor of Science in Information Systems. Carl’s performance and productivity are above average and Carl’s supervisor advised that upon closure of the channels his skills would be redundant. The extenuating circumstance is the investigation into the sexual orientation harassment complaint filed by Carl against a co-worker. The complaint was found to factual (UOP, 2007).
Jenny Mills is a contract call center executive with a Bachelor of Science in Public Relations. Jenny’s supervisor determined that her skills are considered non-critical and is being places up for dismissal for average performance and productivity. A major extenuating circumstance is her pregnancy which is reportedly causing her to take frequent breaks, however there is no proof of her breaks impacting her job (UOP, 2007).
Nora Manson is a contract employee of average performance and below average productivity. Nora’s supervisor advised that her skills are a good mix, however her active membership in the local NAACP chapter has caused her to direct numerous colleagues to file discrimination complaints with the EEOC against FastServe Inc (UOP, 2007) (Reed et al.2005).
Sarah Boyd is a full time employee with above average performance and average productivity. Sarah’s skills will be considered redundant once the channels are closed. She is an at-will employee with 15 years of loyal service. Under the Employment at Will doctrine, she may quit her job whenever and for whatever reason without consequence, but will need to give prior notice to receive termination benefits. In turn, at-will employer, FastServe Inc., may legally terminate Sarah whenever and for whatever reason they want, usually without consequence (Reed et al.2005).
Decision
Work force reductions make a company vulnerable to many of the same legal risks inherent in behavior-related terminations. The decision is for the dismissal of Jenny Mills, Brian Carter and Sarah Boyd. The bases for these decisions, even though legal ramification exists, are based solely on the needs of business.
Jenny Mills dismissal is based on the need for FastServe to reduce costs, and all non-critical employees should be the first to go. There may be a concern over a discrimination claim through the Pregnancy Disability Act. The precedence for such a claim would be the case of Buffone v. Rosebud Restaurants, Inc., No. 05 C 5551 (N.D. Ill. 9/8/06) where the federal judge an employer cannot force a woman to stop working and take pregnancy leave if she is still willing and physically able to work (Reed et al.2005). Legal litigation in this case is minimal since Jenny Mills dismissals comes not as a result of her pregnancy but of the company’s need to reduce costs.
Brian Carter’s dismissal is based on the specific skillset the Brain has and the fact the FastServe will no longer need his services. Brian has been lackluster on the project’s he has worked on and his absenteeism is a concern, but not a basis. FastServe is unable to terminate based on his injury causing missed work because this could lead to an ADA discrimination claim. The ADA's protection could apply to Brian because 1) he has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities; and 2) he has a record of impairment (Reed et al.2005). However, since Brian’s skills are no longer needed at FastServe, legal litigation is not a major concern.
Sarah Boyd’s dismissal is based on the Dispatch environment becoming automated and the supervisor’s determination that Sarah’s performance and productivity is sub-par. After 15 years of loyal service, FastServe will provide a fitting severance package for Mrs. Boyd. This open communication amongst the employees and the obvious justification for layoff (disestablishment of department) reduces the risk of legal litigation.
Conclusion
Many laws have an impact on employment, either directly or indirectly, and some are extremely significant in the employment context. To acquire knowledge of all such laws is not practical, but employers should be aware of the major statutes that govern the employment relationship and the legal obligations they impose.
Reductions in Workforce are a common source of class-action and multi-plaintiff claims, which are especially costly and time consuming to defend. Therefore, it is critical that the decision-making process be designed with great care. To maximize the probable validity of the decision-making process, FastServe Inc. has undertaken several tasks before carrying out the reduction. These tasks include: 1) Get our attorney advice on the intended candidates. 2) Document the business reason for the reduction and the numbers of employees to be reduced. 3) Develop the nondiscriminatory, business-related criteria for selecting employees to be affected by the layoff. 4) Review any performance used for disparate impact on any protected group. 5) Review the personnel files of employees selected for layoff to insure consistency. 6) Ensure all legality have been covered (Reed et al.2005).
FastServe Inc. will provide benefits to ease the transition, including severance packages, unemployment compensation, compensation for earned vacation days, career and placement counseling, and outplacement services. It is incumbent upon managers to keenly observe employees to determine those who will be in the best interest of the company and those who will lead to more problems.
References
Buffone v. Rosebud Restaurants, Inc., No. 05 C 5551 (N.D. Ill. 9/8/06)
Reed, O. L., Shedd, P. J., Morehead, J. W., & Corley, R. N. (2005). The legal and regulatory environment of business, (13th edition). New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
University of Phoenix (2007). FastServe Inc., Legal Issues of Reduction of Workforce Simulation. Retrieved July 19, 2007, from secure/ resource /resource.asp
Table1