There’s no law that says employers must use a
Here’s why: Progressive discipline provides a system for telling an employee exactly how he is failing to live up to expectations and gives him opportunities to save his job. If you eventually fire the worker, that kind of notice effectively derails any claim that discrimination caused the discharge. (Of course, you will have to show that you treated all employees the same way—disciplining all employees for the same conduct, for example.)
Recent case: Eugene Kilpatrick lost his job as a dispatcher at age 68. He immediately assumed that he was let go because of his age, since a much younger employee took over as dispatcher.
But his former employer, Tyson Foods, countered that Kilpatrick had been warned he was in danger of losing his job. He missed required meetings and ignored directives. Finally, he was given a chance to draft an action plan to address his , but didn’t follow through. That’s when Tyson fired him.
The court rejected Kilpatrick’s age claim. Although a younger worker had replaced him, it was clear that he lost his job because of performance problems. Tyson’s progressive discipline system provided ample warning that he needed to improve. Since there was no other age discrimination evidence (such as age-related comments or a pattern showing that the company disproportionately terminated older workers), he had no case. (Kilpatrick v. Tyson Foods, No. 07-13782, 11th Cir., 2008)
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- 10 Secrets to an Effective Performance Review
- Using the Supreme Court's model to prevent employment lawsuits
- Where legal trouble lurks: Even unwritten rules must be enforced fairly and consistently
- Route all requests for FMLA leave through HR
- Solving the he-said, she-said puzzle