So, you terminated someone without cause, can you ever tell them why?
June 25, 2013 11:26 AM Subscribe
My partner had to let someone go from their job, and they were terminated without cause. This means they can't give explicit reasons for the termination. The person was not able to see their impending dismissal, despite repeated efforts by management to the rectify the situation. So, is it ever possible to reach out post-dismissal and make clear the reasons without setting yourself up for legal problems?
The person was liked, and there is no animosity from management, but they just weren't good at their job in a number of specific ways. Furthermore, the person seemed unable to take on board the help and training that were provided.
My partner really feels like they tried to assist this person and finds it frustrating that as part of the termination they can't share the reasons for it. Yes, it should be apparent to the person, but unfortunately it's not.
You are not my lawyer, but...
Is there a statute of limitations on when someone can sue? Or is there some way to try and make clear to person why the were terminated?
Three last things: Partner certainly doesn't feel good about it. The intent of reaching out is to dispel mystery and help the person. This is in Ontario, Canada.
The person was liked, and there is no animosity from management, but they just weren't good at their job in a number of specific ways. Furthermore, the person seemed unable to take on board the help and training that were provided.
My partner really feels like they tried to assist this person and finds it frustrating that as part of the termination they can't share the reasons for it. Yes, it should be apparent to the person, but unfortunately it's not.
You are not my lawyer, but...
Is there a statute of limitations on when someone can sue? Or is there some way to try and make clear to person why the were terminated?
Three last things: Partner certainly doesn't feel good about it. The intent of reaching out is to dispel mystery and help the person. This is in Ontario, Canada.
I have no idea bout the legal side of it. But if the employee was unable to take in or utilize feedback while at the company, what makes you think s/he would do better with it now? I don't mean that to sound flippant, but it seems like there's a good chance whatever mental or emotional blocks they had before, they probably still have them now.
posted by pompelmo at 11:30 AM on June 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by pompelmo at 11:30 AM on June 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
What would your partner tell the terminated employee that they weren't already told in the "repeated efforts by management to rectify the situation?"
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:43 AM on June 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:43 AM on June 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
they just weren't good at their job in a number of specific ways. Furthermore, the person seemed unable to take on board the help and training that were provided.
If the ways were specific, that feedback should have been provided to the person while they were employed. Doing it afterward doesn't really help anybody.
I've been fired twice, and both times no reason was given. In one case, I had a good idea why (the CEO simply didn't like me) and in the other case I had been given a stellar performance review three weeks prior (along with a raise), and I have no idea to this day why I was let go.
It's just something you learn to live with. At will employment means just that. You can be let go for pretty much any reason, or no reason at all.
posted by anastasiav at 11:43 AM on June 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
If the ways were specific, that feedback should have been provided to the person while they were employed. Doing it afterward doesn't really help anybody.
I've been fired twice, and both times no reason was given. In one case, I had a good idea why (the CEO simply didn't like me) and in the other case I had been given a stellar performance review three weeks prior (along with a raise), and I have no idea to this day why I was let go.
It's just something you learn to live with. At will employment means just that. You can be let go for pretty much any reason, or no reason at all.
posted by anastasiav at 11:43 AM on June 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
It almost sounds like the employee could have been terminated with cause (performance concerns), but for some reason the company decided to terminate without cause? Could it be that the company did this so the employee can tell future employers that they were laid off versus being fired for their poor performance?
It is so difficult when you have to end an employment relationship with someone who is likeable. In the end, if the "job fit" or competency isn't there and you've offered as much assistance as is reasonably possible, it is important to accept that the best thing for the business and the employee is to sever the relationship. Sounds like your friend offered assistance and help - they should feel confident that they did the right thing.
I would advise against meeting or speaking with the employee.
posted by caroo at 11:47 AM on June 25, 2013
It is so difficult when you have to end an employment relationship with someone who is likeable. In the end, if the "job fit" or competency isn't there and you've offered as much assistance as is reasonably possible, it is important to accept that the best thing for the business and the employee is to sever the relationship. Sounds like your friend offered assistance and help - they should feel confident that they did the right thing.
I would advise against meeting or speaking with the employee.
posted by caroo at 11:47 AM on June 25, 2013
It appears that the statute of limitations on the Canadian Human Rights Act is one year. There may well be other statutes at the provincal level or other potential claims at the national level that provide longer periods to the former employee. It is extremely unlikely that any disclosures to the employee after a year will be remotely helpful to them.
It is generally a best practice of corporations to provide little or no reason at the time of termination, to allow the most flexible response to any particular lawsuit that may arise. You will find this practice to be extremely common throughout North America.
posted by Lame_username at 11:51 AM on June 25, 2013
It is generally a best practice of corporations to provide little or no reason at the time of termination, to allow the most flexible response to any particular lawsuit that may arise. You will find this practice to be extremely common throughout North America.
posted by Lame_username at 11:51 AM on June 25, 2013
IANAL and do not live in Ontario (but worked there in the past for a number of years). The following may or may not apply to the situation you are describing and assumes that the employee was not covered by a Collective Agreement.
The following also excludes the possibility that the employee may have been discriminated against, in which case a human rights complaint could be filed - but that has to be on very specific grounds.
Employers have the possibility to dismiss with cause or without cause.
If they dismiss without cause, by provincial labour laws, they have to provide a combination of notice of dismissal + severance pay amounting to X number of weeks per years worked. Sometimes, the employee will have a contract that specify a number Y that can be greater (not lower) than X. The amount X may be different if the number of years worked is greater than 10 in some provinces. As long as the dismissal did not contravene the terms of the contract, and that the amount of notice+severance meets provincial labour laws, there is (to my non-lawyer knowledge) no basis to sue. Note that, if sufficient notice is given, the severance amount may be $0.
For employees, it is also often the best case scenario to be dismissed without cause. If they are dismissed with cause, this becomes a huge red flag for other potential employers.
If they dismiss with cause, the employer does not have to provide notice nor pay severance (and the Employee could possibly not be eligible for Employment Insurance). The employee may file a complaint with the labour board but, to my non-lawyer understanding, they can't sue for an amount greater than what they might have received if they were dismissed with cause.
I have often seen employer taking the easy route of dismissing without cause so as to quietly make a problem go away.
Now, regarding your partner: if s/he was working for me and I had decided to let go someone else without cause with the understanding that no reason was to be provided, and your partner decided to take it upon themselves to give a reason to the dismissed employee, this act would be enough for me to initiate disciplinary procedure against your partner, procedure which, depending on the details of the case and the nature of the work, etc., might go anywhere from a verbal reprimande all the way to a dismissal.
posted by aroberge at 12:22 PM on June 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
The following also excludes the possibility that the employee may have been discriminated against, in which case a human rights complaint could be filed - but that has to be on very specific grounds.
Employers have the possibility to dismiss with cause or without cause.
If they dismiss without cause, by provincial labour laws, they have to provide a combination of notice of dismissal + severance pay amounting to X number of weeks per years worked. Sometimes, the employee will have a contract that specify a number Y that can be greater (not lower) than X. The amount X may be different if the number of years worked is greater than 10 in some provinces. As long as the dismissal did not contravene the terms of the contract, and that the amount of notice+severance meets provincial labour laws, there is (to my non-lawyer knowledge) no basis to sue. Note that, if sufficient notice is given, the severance amount may be $0.
For employees, it is also often the best case scenario to be dismissed without cause. If they are dismissed with cause, this becomes a huge red flag for other potential employers.
If they dismiss with cause, the employer does not have to provide notice nor pay severance (and the Employee could possibly not be eligible for Employment Insurance). The employee may file a complaint with the labour board but, to my non-lawyer understanding, they can't sue for an amount greater than what they might have received if they were dismissed with cause.
I have often seen employer taking the easy route of dismissing without cause so as to quietly make a problem go away.
Now, regarding your partner: if s/he was working for me and I had decided to let go someone else without cause with the understanding that no reason was to be provided, and your partner decided to take it upon themselves to give a reason to the dismissed employee, this act would be enough for me to initiate disciplinary procedure against your partner, procedure which, depending on the details of the case and the nature of the work, etc., might go anywhere from a verbal reprimande all the way to a dismissal.
posted by aroberge at 12:22 PM on June 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I've been in management more than 20 years (US) and unfortunately have let a lot of people go in various circumstances. I echo Ruthless Bunny and aroberge -- your partner needs to let this go. I don't know if they are in HR or the employee's manager, but managing performance, including termination, is part of the job in both cases. Your partner may benefit from talking with EAP or a trusted mentor to deal with their feelings. But, under no circumstances should they contact the employee -- they may well be risking their own job by doing so and I think it is unlikely to help the employee.
posted by elmay at 12:52 PM on June 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by elmay at 12:52 PM on June 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yeah. Your partner should let this go. Partly because it could cause problems for the company -- even if the person has no legal recourse they might *try* to sue, or cause other problems. But really mainly because there would be no benefit to it -- if the person was unable to accept and use feedback while at the organization, they are even less likely to accept and use it now they've been fired.
I don't get the sense your partner is in HR -- I'm assuming he/she was the person's supervisor, and I am guessing he/she isn't very experienced. Over time, your partner will probably learn to channel his or her managerial energy where it will be most useful, and that is not here.
posted by Susan PG at 12:56 PM on June 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don't get the sense your partner is in HR -- I'm assuming he/she was the person's supervisor, and I am guessing he/she isn't very experienced. Over time, your partner will probably learn to channel his or her managerial energy where it will be most useful, and that is not here.
posted by Susan PG at 12:56 PM on June 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
The advice I was always given was to say these words, and ONLY these words: "your services are no longer required" and then show them the door.
Anything else is ammunition for a lawsuit or other blowback in an at-will state.
posted by JoeZydeco at 12:57 PM on June 25, 2013
Anything else is ammunition for a lawsuit or other blowback in an at-will state.
posted by JoeZydeco at 12:57 PM on June 25, 2013
Please let this go. Ideally your partner should use this experience to learn how to handle this kind of situation faster/better in the future.
The fantasy of telling someone a painful truth and they respond with "Oh, I get it now, thank you, I'll be a better (whatever) from here on out, good bye" is so wonderfully tempting everyone wants to make it happen. Nope, it doesn't work that way.
If it is really an itch that won't go away, write the letter, put it in an envelope, and re-visit this in 6 months.
posted by Classic Diner at 1:15 PM on June 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
The fantasy of telling someone a painful truth and they respond with "Oh, I get it now, thank you, I'll be a better (whatever) from here on out, good bye" is so wonderfully tempting everyone wants to make it happen. Nope, it doesn't work that way.
If it is really an itch that won't go away, write the letter, put it in an envelope, and re-visit this in 6 months.
posted by Classic Diner at 1:15 PM on June 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
Just going on the logical parsing of the words, "termination without cause" means there really was no reason. At least as far as the law goes. I would be very wary of providing a reason to that person. It could very well mean someone has defrauded someone. (I'm specifically thinking of unemployment insurance- with cause and without cause mean different things to displaced workers.)
If this person didn't respond to direct feedback while they worked there, there is no reason to believe they will do anything with feedback afterwards. Leave it alone. Sometimes nice people are bad at their jobs and need to be let go. A manager has to be able to handle this within the system provided. Anything else will bite them in the ass in one way or another.
posted by gjc at 5:09 PM on June 25, 2013
If this person didn't respond to direct feedback while they worked there, there is no reason to believe they will do anything with feedback afterwards. Leave it alone. Sometimes nice people are bad at their jobs and need to be let go. A manager has to be able to handle this within the system provided. Anything else will bite them in the ass in one way or another.
posted by gjc at 5:09 PM on June 25, 2013
One of the things that I've never, ever gotten used to as a manager is that sometimes nice people have to be let go for a variety of reasons, and it's rarely clear to them why. Even if it's somehow logically clear to them why, it doesn't make it somehow all right. We had to do a Friday-afternoon termination-and-show-to-the-door a woman who might as well have been Aunt Bea from the Andy Griffith Show. I've also had to fire a sullen teenager. The latter was easier than the former, but if you've got a soul, it's hard either way.
NOTHING good can come of communicating with this person after the termination. Not for them, not for your partner, not for the company.
posted by randomkeystrike at 6:24 PM on June 25, 2013
NOTHING good can come of communicating with this person after the termination. Not for them, not for your partner, not for the company.
posted by randomkeystrike at 6:24 PM on June 25, 2013
The person was not able to see their impending dismissal, despite repeated efforts by management to the rectify the situation. The person won't be able to hear/ see/ accept it post-termination either.
posted by theora55 at 7:51 PM on June 25, 2013
posted by theora55 at 7:51 PM on June 25, 2013
Does your partner really the person doesn't know why they were fired? Weren't there coaching sessions, retrainings, improvement plans and write ups? A company fearful of lawsuits has certainly learned how important it is to document.
The person may not think it was fair, but they know why the company fired them. If they don't, they are so obtuse, your partner can't help them no matter what they do.
posted by spaltavian at 8:33 PM on June 25, 2013
The person may not think it was fair, but they know why the company fired them. If they don't, they are so obtuse, your partner can't help them no matter what they do.
posted by spaltavian at 8:33 PM on June 25, 2013
Mod note: This is a followup from the asker.
Thank you for the responses, my partner found them helpful, and the advice to refrain from reaching out will be taken.posted by cortex (staff) at 9:16 PM on June 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
In business, terminated without cause typically means "we don't want to bother contesting this unemployment case when we fire you." If you're going to get fired, this is the one you want. It doesn't exactly mean you must not tell them why you were dismissed. That likely comes from legal, which generally does a comparison of the options and recommends the one with the least legal risk for the company. Since saying anything provides more ammunition in court than saying nothing, the policy your partner has followed thus far seems reasonable.
From this perspective, your question could be reframed "When is it okay to take legal risks for the company?" The answer is not never, but it's also a long walk from "to help out the dude we just let go for underperforming." Assuming the actual reason the individual was fired is indeed legal, the proper time to inform a person why you're firing them is long before they get fired. If you set clear expectations, acknowledge when they are not being met, and provide ample feedback for how to improve, it should be obvious on both sides why the firing happened.
posted by pwnguin at 9:22 PM on June 25, 2013
From this perspective, your question could be reframed "When is it okay to take legal risks for the company?" The answer is not never, but it's also a long walk from "to help out the dude we just let go for underperforming." Assuming the actual reason the individual was fired is indeed legal, the proper time to inform a person why you're firing them is long before they get fired. If you set clear expectations, acknowledge when they are not being met, and provide ample feedback for how to improve, it should be obvious on both sides why the firing happened.
posted by pwnguin at 9:22 PM on June 25, 2013
Think of it like dating. Imagine you're dating someone you really like but who is frigging horrible in bed, or maybe a terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible kisser. I briefly dated a woman who kissed like a Pac Man with teeth. Literally, just like that. NOM! NOM! NOM! Yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikes. There was absolutely nothing I could have possibly said to explain why I didn't want to go on more dates with her that wouldn't have made matters worse. "I'm sorry, but I don't have good enough dental insurance to date you." NOPE. It's not like she could become a better kisser. THAT WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.
You said that the person who was terminated was "unable to take on board the help and training that were provided." If that's true, telling them this after the fact is only going to make them feel worse. It's like kicking someone when they're down.
I realize you want to help, but the only way to help is before, not after. And that's based on the assumption it's even possible to help, which isn't always the case.
posted by 2oh1 at 9:46 PM on June 25, 2013
You said that the person who was terminated was "unable to take on board the help and training that were provided." If that's true, telling them this after the fact is only going to make them feel worse. It's like kicking someone when they're down.
I realize you want to help, but the only way to help is before, not after. And that's based on the assumption it's even possible to help, which isn't always the case.
posted by 2oh1 at 9:46 PM on June 25, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
How much use did this person make of the warnings? The write-ups and the suggestions for traning and help prior to his or her termination?
Your partner needs to let it go.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 11:28 AM on June 25, 2013 [25 favorites]