Blog Categories
|
|
The Office Organizer: 10 tips on file organizing, clutter control, document management, business shredding policy, record retention guidelines and how to organize office emails
- Home
- Blogs
- Case In Point
- Discrimination & Harassment
- Unforced error: Tennis coach's firing serves up lesson on inconsistent discipline
Unforced error: Tennis coach's firing serves up lesson on inconsistent discipline
- By Mindy Chapman, Esq., Mindy Chapman & Associates
- 12/20/2007 - 9:30am
- Discrimination & Harassment
Mindy Chapman, Esq., Mindy Chapman & Associates
Mindy is a nationally recognized authority in EEO laws and is a contributing editor to the HR Specialist: Employment Law
monthly newsletter. She is highly regarded for her workplace compliance
training that “clicks and sticks,” because it is practical and
memorable. She is also the coauthor of the American Bar Association’s
bestseller and authority on civil rights training, “Case Dismissed! Taking Your Harassment Prevention Training to Trial."
The Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) has recognized Mindy as one of its Top Ten Speakers nationally. She has trained extensively in all industries at all levels of the
workforce—from boardroom executives to managers and supervisors and to
hourly employees in union and non-union environments.
Does your company have a written progressive disciplinary process? If so, do your managers and supervisors always follow it fairly and consistently? One slip-up, as a new case shows, can smash your company in court.
Progressive discipline is a system in which penalties increase upon repeat occurrences. The typical stages in the workplace are: (1) counseling or a verbal warning; (2) a written warning; (3) suspension or demotion; and (4) termination. But don’t pick and choose which employees you run through progressive discipline. It’s critical to apply those procedures to all employees or none.
Case in Point: Debbie Peirick coached the tennis team at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). In her 13th season as coach, she led the team to its best record ever and qualified for the NCAA tournament for the first time. The team also held the highest grade point average of any IUPUI athletic team. She was consistently recognized and awarded for her coaching.
Still, the school fired her after that season. Why? Some players complained about her communication style and inability to be organized. The problem with the firing: Peirick wasn’t given any warning about the school’s dissatisfaction, which conflicted with the university’s written progressive discipline policy. Also, other male employees were given warnings before being fired.
The Athletic Director explained that he wanted to take the tennis program “in a different direction” and offered her the opportunity to retire. He also claimed he didn’t have to follow the progressive disciplinary policy because Peirick was only a half-time, hourly employee.
Peirick, 53, was replaced with the sister of the men’s tennis coach. She was 23, had no prior coaching experience and was given a higher salary than Peirick, who had worked 13 years at the school. As you can expect, Peirick sued IUPUI for sex discrimination and age discrimination. (Peirick v. Ind. Univ.-Purdue Univ. Indianapolis Athletic Dept, 7th Cir. 12/14/07).How did the case end … and what lessons can be learned?
An appellate court last week tossed out her age discrimination claim, but it said there was enough evidence to send the sex discrimination claim to trial. It noted that two male coaches who committed more serious violations of university policies (including allowing underage athletes to drink alcohol) were simply given warnings.
3 Lessons Learned … Without Having to Go to Court
1. Follow your progressive discipline policy. If you have one in writing, make sure you train all managers and supervisors to follow it.
2. Do it to one, do it to all. Be fair and consistent when applying discipline to employees in order to avoid discrimination claims based on gender, age, religion, national origin, race/color, etc. The court said it was “unprecedented’ to fire the coach under the circumstances.3. Better have a great reason to deviate and jump right to termination. The court in this case took into consideration that co-workers were “shocked” and “baffled” by the coach’s firing, noting that how the university treated Peirick was “outside the norm.” The court thought a jury could find the university’s reasons for termination to be a “pretext” for gender bias.
Final note: About one week before the above case was decided, a jury awarded $19.1 million dollars to a Fresno State University’s women’s basketball coach who claimed she was subjected to discrimination, retaliation and disparate treatment. (Johnson-Klein v. Ca. State Univ. Fresno, verdict entered 12/6/07).
The Office Organizer: 10 tips on file organizing, clutter control, document management, business shredding policy, record retention guidelines and how to organize office emails
Related Articles
Spread The Word
FREE Special Reports
Workplace Violence Prevention ToolkitOvertime Labor Law: 6 FLSA Compliance Tips
Salary Negotiating 101: 7 secrets
Maternity Leave Laws: 7 guidelines
Employment Background Check Guidelines
FMLA Intermittent Leave: 5 guidelines
Best-Practices Leadership:
Team Management Tips
Workplace Conflict Resolution:
10 ways to manage employee conflict
14 Tips on Business Etiquette:
Setting a professional tone with co-workers, clients and customers
Office Communication Toolkit: 10 tips for managers
The Office Organizer: 10 tips
Effective Performance Review: Examples and Tips
Small Business Tax Deduction Strategies
Expert Bloggers
|
|
