Who won this case? He complains, then gets fired
March 17, 2008 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Complaint investigation, Employment law, Latest News & Views, Terminations, Who won?
A poor-performing employee gets fired shortly after filing a complaint about company safety. He sues the company for retaliation. Who won this real-life case?
The facts:
An employee sued after being fired for documented poor performance. Basis for the suit: About 60 days before the firing, the employee had filed a complaint with a state agency about safety violations as the company. He charged that the company fired him in retaliation for the complaint, and not because of performance.
The employer said:
The supervisor had a record of the employee’s poor performance, including low performance appraisals. That kind of documentation proved that the firing was warranted and had nothing to do with the complaint.
Who won the case?
Answer: The employee.
Why: A judge agreed that the company had adequate documentation for the termination – if there were no other relevant factors involved. The complaint itself and the timing of the firing were relevant factors that made the termination look suspicious.
The fact that there was only two months between the time of the complaint and the firing raised some red flags, according to the judge. When events are that close, it’s reasonable to conclude that one affected the other.
And the law gives special protections to complaints about safety, since they cover matters of “public policy,” meaning they affect other workers besides the one who complained.
Cite: Kohrt v. MidAmerican Energy Co.
Tags: documentation, firing, performance, retaliation, safety, termination
Loading ...
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
We have grown a lot over the past year. What is the standard for probationary and annual reviews? Do most give a review after 90 days and then again on the first anniversary of start date, or on the anniversary of probationary review date? Our effective employee handbook says nothing about it, but new hires are routinely told they will be reviewed after 90 days and after a year, which is ambiguous. I’m trying to ensure parity, because both time schemes listed above have been used over the years.