Too many managers make the mistake of not telling the whole truth during termination meetings. That might soften the initial blow, but it also opens the door for future lawsuits.
For example, managers may tell fired employees that their services are no longer needed and that their jobs were eliminated. But what happens when the employee finds out the company hired a new employee to do the same work?
Now the ex-employee has a good chance to claim that the reasons given were just a cover for some other motivation – such as race or gender bias. Even if the reasons were strictly performance-based, once a company’s caught bending the truth, it’s tough to explain the real story to a judge.
Lessons from the courts
That doesn’t mean you need to drag the meeting out with explanations by explaining every single infraction that led to the termination. You and the manager just need to deliver the facts as briefly as possible.
In one recent case, an ex-department head brought an age discrimination claim against his former employer. When he was fired, his supervisor told him it was because the company had “lost faith” in his ability to lead the department, and gave a few specific examples of his poor conduct. However, during litigation the company mentioned some other reasons, including a sharp decline in the department’s revenue during the guy’s tenure.
The employee claimed the “inconsistencies” between what was said in the termination meeting and what was said in court gave clear evidence that the company was lying. But the judge didn’t buy it. The “new” reasons the company brought up in court were just an offshoot of the larger problem – that the man was a bad manager. So there were really no inconsistencies at all.
On the other hand, if the company had given the man a different reason altogether (that the job was eliminated, for example) things could have gone the other way.
Cite: Ruleford v. Tulsa World Pub. Co.
