ILNews

IBA: How To Fire An Employee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
waterfill-mark-mug Waterfill

By Mark R. Waterfill

Would you rather get your teeth drilled or fire that problem employee? It is easily the most painful part of the employment process. The case law of employment claims is ripe with horrible stories of terminations gone wrong. The purpose of this article is to set out guidelines which can help to make the tooth drilling process a little easier, both for you and the terminated individual.

Take as much time to fire as you did to hire. The employer who decides to fire someone at 3 pm on Friday is making a terrible mistake. Never fire in a hurry, especially when you are angry. Take your time and plan both the firing decision and the means to do it.

Document performance to support the decision. Hopefully you have good documentation procedures in place already and have given the employee evaluations and warnings that the performance is sub par or that there is some other business reason for the termination.

Always tell the truth. If the termination is not for cause but because of a downsizing, then do not make up other reasons, tell the employee you have to downsize. However, if the reason given is that there is a downsizing, make sure that you are not looking to fill the position in the near future.

Fire the employee for what they admit to have done, not what is speculated to have happened. In almost every for cause termination situation there are facts that the employee admits which are sufficient to justify the action. Use those as the reason for the termination, not what is suspected. For example, the bank teller who admits that she failed to count the money before placing it in the bag will be fired for that and not for theft of the money which she adamantly denies.

Use a team to deliver the news. The team should consist of a person with authority to make the decision and one who can handle the details of the exit. It is often advisable to have a male-female team to handle the matter.

Consider using a termination letter. Indiana law requires a written reason be given for any termination. Moreover, the exit interview can be eased substantially by the use of a termination letter. The letter can set out a general reason for the action, and handle the details of the termination with an increased degree of professionalism.

Handle the money well. Know how much the employee is owed for wages, vacation, commissions, etc. By handing the fired employee an envelope with a check in the appropriate amount at the termination, you will substantially reduce the chances for lawsuit by a disgruntled employee.

Terminate in a neutral site such as a board room or conference room. Besides being more fair to the discharged employ, the neutral site is more flexible than the president’s office. The terminated employee may want to go over every detail of removing each nick nack from the office or go over other details that the company president doesn’t need to remain to discuss. By using the neutral site, these situations can be avoided.

Shut up. Termination interviews can be ruined by poorly stated oral presentations. You have labored over this letter which the employee is trying to read, so let them do so. The best terminations are when the employee reads the letter, shakes your hand and walks out the door, nothing more to be said. Don’t ruin it by talking too much. Also, don’t engage in debate. The decision has been made and there is no reason to continue a discussion on the point.

Consider a severance package. Many employees are looking for a “package” consisting of severance and other benefits. If you are willing to pay more than two weeks’ severance, you should have an employment attorney draft a complete severance and release agreement which complies with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act. In the long run, you may save a lot of time and money by providing a severance package.

Remind the employee of any obligations to the company. In many states, including Indiana, covenants not to compete are enforceable even against employees who have been fired. Also, many employees know confidential trade secrets belonging to the company and they may not realize the liability they face for misappropriating those. It is good practice to remind employees of their obligations in the terminations letter.

Post-termination considerations. Do not follow all of these suggestions and then screw up the entire matter after the fact. Be aware that post-termination defamation and discrimination claims can be very expensive. Keep the circumstances of the termination confidential and instruct all others to do the same.

Firing an employee is, without question, the hardest part of management. However, by following these guidelines you might find what you thought would be a difficult termination turn-out to be as harmless as a visit to the dentist - with no cavities.•

Mark R. Waterfill is an attorney with the Indianapolis law firm of Benesch/Dann Pecar.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Ah ha, so the architect of the ISC Commission to advance racial preferences and gender warfare, a commission that has no place at the inn for any suffering religious discrimination, see details http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 ..... this grand architect of that institutionalized 14th amendment violation just cannot bring himself to utter the word religious discrimination, now can he: "Shepard noted two questions rise immediately from the decision. The first is how will trial courts handle allegations of racism during jury deliberations? The second is does this exception apply only to race? Shepard believes the exception to Rule 606 could also be applied to sexual orientation and gender." Thus barks the Shepard: "Race, gender, sexual orientation". But not religion, oh no, not that. YET CONSIDER ... http://www.pewforum.org/topics/restrictions-on-religion/ Of course the old dog's inability to see this post modern phenomena, but to instead myopically focus on the sexual orientation issues, again betrays one of his pet protects, see here http://www.in.gov/judiciary/admin/files/fair-pubs-summit-agenda.pdf Does such preference also reveal the mind of an anti-religious bigot? There can be no doubt that those on the front lines of the orientation battle often believe religion their enemy. That certainly could explain why the ISC kicked me in the face and down the proverbial crevice when I documented religious discrimination in its antechambers in 2009 .... years before the current turnover began that ended with a whole new court (hallelujah!) in 2017. Details on the kick to my face here http://www.wnd.com/2011/08/329933/ Friends and countrymen, harbor no doubt about it .... anti-religious bias is strong with this old dog, it is. One can only wonder what Hoosier WW2 hero and great jurist Justice Alfred Pivarnik would have made of all of this? Take this comment home for us, Gary Welsh (RIP): http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2005/05/sex-lies-and-supreme-court-justices.html

  2. my sister hit a horse that ran in the highway the horse belonged to an amish man she is now in a nurseing home for life. The family the horse belonged to has paid some but more needs to be paid she also has kids still at home...can we sue in the state f Indiana

  3. Or does the study merely wish they fade away? “It just hasn’t risen substantially in decades,” Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law told Law360. “What we should be looking for is progress, and that’s not what we’re seeing.” PROGRESS = less white males in leadership. Thus the heading and honest questions here ....

  4. One need not wonder why we are importing sex slaves into North America. Perhaps these hapless victims of human trafficking were being imported for a book of play with the Royal Order of Jesters? https://medium.com/@HeapingHelping/who-are-the-royal-order-of-jesters-55ffe6f6acea Indianapolis hosts these major pervs in a big way .... https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Royal-Order-of-Jesters-National-Office/163360597025389 I wonder what affect they exert on Hoosier politics? And its judiciary? A very interesting program on their history and preferences here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtgBdUtw26c

  5. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

ADVERTISEMENT