Who won this case? Employee terminated over threat
April 10, 2008 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Behavior, Complaint investigation, Discipline, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Supervisors, Who won?
A supervisor fires an employee who indirectly threatened a co-worker. Did a judge in this actual case agree that the termination was unfair?
The facts: A frustrated employee told his supervisor and others that he planned to harm a co-worker: “I’m going to stab him in the heart with a screwdriver.” The supervisor took immediate action and fired the employee. The employee sued over the firing and argued that he’d been harassed by the co-worker who was threatened. The employee further argued that he’d complained about the harassment to the supervisor, but nothing was ever done about it.
The employer said:
The company had a zero-tolerance policy about threats of violence, and the supervisor was just following the policy. Yes, the fired employee’s complaints had been mostly ignored, but that was because the employee had filed multiple complaints against other co-workers.
Who won the case?
Answer: The employee.
Why: Two main factors came into play here:
1. The employee hadn’t directly threatened the other employee to his face.
2. The fired employee’s complaints about the co-worker hadn’t been properly addressed.
Plus, the judge concluded that the threatening comment to the supervisor represented nothing more than blowing off a little steam over the frustration of working with a difficult person. Given all those factors, under the circumstances, termination was an overreaction. A lost temper – without physical action – shouldn’t necessarily result in a lost job.
Generally, the best remedy comes before the threat is ever made. Most threats come after a string of related problems. The wise manager responds to and addresses the incidents before they boil over into something worse.
Cite: Thompson v. Aeroquip Inoac Co.
Tags: complaints, policy, termination, violence
Loading ...
April 14th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
He said “I’m going to stab him in the heart with a screwdriver.” and they ruled in his favor! What are we coming to?? I certainly would not want this person employed at my Company. I think the supervisor acted appropriately.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
While I believe the supervisor acted properly the reality is the company didn’t investigate his complaints. So the “no tolerance” policy for threats and harrassement is a baseless front. If the company had in fact consistently displayed a no tolerance policy then I believe the courts would have veiwed this one differently.
If the company had investigated this person complaints against other employees and found them to be false then the company may have a shaky leg to stand on. Words without actions are blah, blah, blah, meaningless…
June 30th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
My company also has zero tolerance for threats of physical violence. It is too bad that the fired employee’s complaints werent investigated as they should have been but that is definately the lesser of the two evils. If an employee voices a physical threat to another employee I would terminate also, the liability is just too great.
If you really think that words without actions are meaningless just try saying the words “Im going to my car and getting a bomb” while your waiting on your next flight.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:35 am
I don’t think that not investigating the ee’s complaints is the lesser of two evils. If the company had followed its own no tolerance policy then the possible escalation to where the ee said what he said would have been significantly lessened. Looking at the threat, which I agree is bad, and then the company justifying their own neglect of policy in behalf of the ee is completely backward.
There is a hint that the company or at least the supervisor had personal feelings about the ee that hindered a good sense action. “Yes, the fired employee’s complaints had been mostly ignored, but that was because the employee had filed multiple complaints against other co-workers.” This is where the problem began. The court made a correct decision based on the company’s inaction toward the ee. They did not live up to their own policy in behalf of the ee and basically used selective enforcement.