Is it normal to fire people without stating a cause?

September 22, 2017 11:11 PM

I had to let someone go at work, but HR and my supervisor wouldn't allow me to say why. Is that normal practice?

I supervise some staff at my office, and recently had to terminate one of our employees because of misconduct. There was no way around it; the partner organization who they were supporting had complained of their behavior and said that they no longer wished to work with them. The misconduct complaint also matched up with information that I had about the employee's behavior from another source. I know precisely what the issue was, and this seemed like a pretty cut and dried case to me. But, HR wouldn't allow me to tell the employee why they were being terminated and instead we told the employee that we were re-evaluating our staffing and would no longer be able to employ them.

I would have preferred to simply tell the employee why they were being terminated, in part because they're pretty young and could learn from the experience for the future. On one hand, they probably have an idea of what this was about and why it was happening, but on the other hand, I feel like it's a problem to say nothing at all about why you're firing a person (yes, we're in an at will situation, etc). But all of this aside, I'm wondering if my expectations about the types of feedback that employees should receive from their employers about these types of decisions are just out of whack and unrealistic. Are they?

posted by anonymous to Work & Money (9 answers total)

It sounds like the organisation may be wanting to treat this as a layoff, not a firing. This is sometimes done as a kindness for the departing employee, as it means they can honestly say no if they're asked during a future hiring process whether they've ever been fired.
posted by une_heure_pleine at 11:50 PM on September 22, 2017 [15 favorites]

It also insulates the company from lawsuits based on the accusation of misbehavior (defamation), something a terminated employee would be much more likely to do if the reason were stated officially and thereby damaged future employability or ability to collect unemployment benefits.

HR doesn't like to make things contentious for the company if it can let a problematic employee go without making a big fuss.
posted by darkstar at 11:55 PM on September 22, 2017 [19 favorites]

This smells like legal risk management to me. What kind of misconduct are you talking about here? Since you mentioned a partner organisation, if it's a serious enough complaint then the organisation may have agreed with the partner organisation not to bring them into it. Or it could be general policy as per what Une_heure_pleine says above in order to allow the coworker the graceful out-- if it's a senior enough role or a small enough career world then that would be a reason to this as well. Or it could be something like the handbook lists misconducts bad enough to be immediately fired and this is not one of them, and they're worried about her turning around and accusing the company of an irregularity.

But as to your question-- no, I don't think your expectations are out of line. When I have fired staff for cause in the past I have always communicated what the cause is (generally with an accompanying paper trail for repeated behaviours). Why don't you ask HR the reason for the position? Tell them you aren't arguing with them, you just want to learn from the experience.
posted by frumiousb at 11:56 PM on September 22, 2017 [1 favorite]

If you give a reason, they can dispute it. The employee always wins in a lawsuit against a company even if the company prevails in court. It's bad PR no matter how you play it.

On the other hand, a layoff isn't generally disputable unless you're a member of a protected class. So yeah, no matter how good your intentions are with respect to transparency, your company doesn't want you to leave any tracks they may have to support in court later.
posted by janey47 at 2:44 AM on September 23, 2017 [5 favorites]

Given that the standard at-will employment rules apply, many employers would do the same. The rule is that you do not have to give a reason for terminating employment. So the perception is that, if you do give a reason, the employee may try to argue, in a later lawsuit, that the reasons were insufficient, or that certain events were not properly understood, etc. If you don't give reasons, you don't give him that ammunition.

The rule, often stated, is that the employer can fire the employee for no reason at all. But that is misleading. In the real world, no one is fired "for no reason at all." The rule, best stated, is that the courts will not involve themselves in trying to second-guess the employer as to his reasons for termination. Does it sometimes lead to unfair results? Sure. All rules do.
posted by megatherium at 4:45 AM on September 23, 2017 [4 favorites]

Ever seen Nixon's resignation letter? Sometimes it's better not to give a reason. This employee's personal growth is not your problem. What do you think is the more likely scenario:
A) They have no idea why they just got fired let go. They would be absolutely boggled if you were to tell them what they were doing wrong. They would learn from this experience and become a better person.
B) They will argue and fight and sue you and your company and the partner organization.

I'd say B is a lot more likely. Sounds like you might think that as well. And that's why HR has that policy in place.
posted by Etrigan at 4:56 AM on September 23, 2017 [1 favorite]

There are actually two quite contradictory theories on what an honest yet self-interested employer should do here.

The first goes that the only reason overtly to fire someone for misconduct is to disqualify them from unemployment insurance benefits if you're at an inflection point on your experience rating and it would be very expensive to your UI tax rate, or you have to in order to hold back some particularly generous severance or deferred compensation that you fairly feel the employee forfeited. Otherwise, let them go without a reason in order that they can get unemployment and truthfully say they've never been fired for cause, which is a significant black mark on security clearance, graduate school applications, some professional licenses etc., and tempts people to sue.

The second goes that employers would all be better off if they didn't pass each other's bad apples off on each other by "laying off" people who commit misconduct, and also that you create more legal liability for yourself in the long run by compromising the integrity of your HR record keeping and decisions. If you are ever sued for wrongful termination, in your defense is your system of reviews and write ups and consequences, it's pretty terrible for a blatant malefactor to avoid consequences. Additionally, there are plenty of states where unemployment benefits are quite generous for a lot of lower middle income people, and you certainly don't want to create a free option for people to break serious rules knowing they will be fired and still go on UI when they wanted to quit or move anyway.
posted by MattD at 5:35 AM on September 23, 2017 [4 favorites]

In an ideal world, and for all the reasons you stated, it would be vastly preferable to explain the reason behind the termination. Doing so would also convey to the remaining employees what behaviors will not be tolerated.

Alas, this is not an ideal world. In this world, your company wants to withhold the reason because there is no paper trail (I assume) about the misconduct, even though there was independent verification of the behavior. It is risk management at its most blatant, for sure, but addressing the termination cause publicly would send a message to the remaining employees that the company won't necessarily alert you to a brewing problem preferring instead to just fire you out of the blue. That characterization may be absolutely false and probably is because you seem like a caring manager in a well-intended company, but that is unfortunately the message that gets sent. Ouch.

By providing the "reorganization" cover story, your company is signaling to the terminated employee, the partner organization, and anyone else interested (subsequent employers, for example) what the official story is. And they're sticking to it, as should the terminated employee. That way everyone benefits and no one gets hurt (except subsequent employers, perhaps).

Good HR people are a joy to behold. They make the company work more smoothly, promote growth among employees and managers, and ensure the company operates with integrity. But sadly many HR people are frustrated accountants who justify their existence by monitoring goings-on in the company so they can erect roadblocks to innovation and operate out of a sense of paranoia-driven caution. Most fall somewhere in between.
posted by DrGail at 7:06 AM on September 23, 2017 [2 favorites]

The answer to your question depends almost entirely on where you are in the world. In the UK, it would not be normal, and quite possibly not even legal.
posted by Perodicticus potto at 8:53 AM on September 23, 2017 [1 favorite]