If you're involved in termination decisions, don't always take supervisors' comments at face value. Consider doing your own investigation before taking action. Your goal is to independently verify the information you're receiving from supervisors. Also try to determine if the supervisor has ever shown discriminatory tendencies toward the worker.
As this case shows, your organization won't escape liability for discrimination merely by having a neutral party perform the firing. If an employee can prove that discrimination infected just one piece of the firing decision, you can be liable.
That's why you can't let one bad apple manipulate employment decisions. Remind supervisors that it's their job to make sure discrimination doesn't taint any part of the hiring and firing process, including.
Recent case: John Cariglia, who was in his 60s, was a successful manager at the Boston branch of Hertz Equipment Rental. The division vice president, who supervised Cariglia's office, denigrated Cariglia because of his age, calling him "over the hill," "not our kind" and someone "who should not be here."
The vice president instigated a series of internal audits against the Boston branch, telling a regional controller to "keep digging" until he found something to "get rid of Cariglia." The audit revealed a financial irregularity, a tax deferment issue that the vice president had actually instructed Cariglia to do.
The vice president sent the "set-up" audit report to senior, which then fired Cariglia for gross misconduct.
Cariglia sued, alleging age discrimination. A federal appeals court sided with him.
Hertz had argued that Cariglia couldn't win because the ultimate firing decision makers (senior management) had no bias against him. But that doesn't matter, the court said. An organization can be liable for discrimination if a neutral decision maker fires an employee based on information that's tainted by someone else's discriminatory motives.
The court found enough evidence that the VP had influenced the termination process by providing suspect information. (Cariglia v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corp., No. 02-2199, 1st Cir., 2004)
Like what you've read? ...Republish it and share great business tips!
Attention: Readers, Publishers, Editors, Bloggers, Media, Webmasters and more...
We believe great content should be read and passed around. After all, knowledge IS power. And good business can become great with the right information at their fingertips. If you'd like to share any of the insightful articles on BusinessManagementDaily.com, you may republish or syndicate it without charge.
The only thing we ask is that you keep the article exactly as it was written and formatted. You also need to include an attribution statement and link to the article.
" This information is proudly provided by Business Management Daily.com: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/365/check-the-validity-of-reasons-behind-a-supervisors-call-for-firing "
- Offer training to those who aren't promoted
- No disability discrimination if worker isn't qualified for job
- Retirement offer instead of disciplinary hearing isn't adverse action
- Employee 'had a hunch' about bias? That's not enough to support retaliation suit
- Looking for a quick end to harassment case? Never urge the complaining employee to resign