Forums
New hire termination
General Forum
New hire termination
Discuss workforce management, performance management, retention, communication, motivation, contributing to business results and other topics.
We hired an employee and after about 50 hours worked we realized she didn't have the skill set we needed and let her go.
She HAD a job that she quit to come work here and now her old position has b
0
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId53
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId53Discussion:DiscussionId36564
Forums » Topic Forums » General Forum » New hire termination
|
New hire termination
posted at 6/4/2010 3:58 AM EDT
|
Posts: 17
First: 6/4/2010 Last: 9/14/2011 |
We hired an employee and after about 50 hours worked we realized she didn't have the skill set we needed and let her go.
She HAD a job that she quit to come work here and now her old position has been filled. Do we have any legal ramifications to worry about? We are in the State of Michigan |
|
|
New hire termination
posted at 6/4/2010 5:09 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 2146
First: 2/15/2006 Last: 9/14/2011 |
I think the legal concept you are looking for is "detrimental reliance".
But if you have good interview notes and/or she oversold her skillset, you should be okay. Do you have a job descriptoin? Did it list the essential skills and tasks? Was she shown it during the hiring process? Did she assent to it? A good job description can protect the employer from decisions like this. Of course, hindsight is 20/20. In most states, she would be approved for unemployment benefits but they would be charged back to the prior employer because she didn't work for you long enough. |
|
|
New hire termination
posted at 6/4/2010 5:13 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 17
First: 6/4/2010 Last: 9/14/2011 |
Thanks for the reply!
She did oversell herself a bit. We did not have a job description, on purpose, because we weren't sure how the job would change. We realized after hiring her that we were going to need more than she could provide for us. She knew nothing about our industry, nor the computer and we didn't have the time to spend to bring her up to speed. Also, we hired her part-time knowing that at some point this would turn into a full-time position and she couldn't commit to that. Does it still sound like we are okay? |
|
|
New hire termination
posted at 6/4/2010 5:47 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 2146
First: 2/15/2006 Last: 9/14/2011 |
Honestly it sounds like you were unsure of the hire and the job but went ahead with it without knowing what you really wanted.
I guess my other question was how you posed the job to her. Did she know that it was possibly not as permanent? What were HER expectations? Were they set correctly? If so, then you don't have as big a worry. If not and you were at my company, I would suggest that you do some type of severance payment with a release/waiver of claims. That might give you a basic level of protection from a claim. And it would show a bit of good faith. |
|
|
New hire termination
posted at 6/4/2010 7:59 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 1103
First: 3/16/2007 Last: 8/19/2011 |
An "at-will" statement will not, in and of itself, protect you or prevent this former employee for filing suit.
Your concerns should be: 1. How did you determine standards of performance and competency in the absence of a job description? 2. How did you measure that performance in the absence of a job description? 3. How did you assess competency in any required KSA's in the absence of a Job Description? 4. What, if any, training did you offer this person? How was that documented? 5. How could you accurately assess the performance of someone in only 50 hours in the absence of known and communicated performance standards or KSA's? 6. Is this person of a protected class and if so how does their treatment stack up when compared to others similarly and not similarly situated? 7. Was there any performance counseling, training or corrective action undertaken during this short 50 hour employment period? How is that documented? While the odds are that you will get away with this the reality is that as an employer you have much to be concerned about with your processes. Relying solely on an "at-will" statement is a fools errand and you should, regardless of your size, have more defined protocols and processes for your jobs and the evaluation of individuals for those jobs. The fact that you hired this person, absent any clear written criteria, and then quickly terminated them absent that same written criteria, does not bode well. In my humble opinion it does not pass the smell test. Smelling good isn't a legal principle but it could cause you difficulty should this person decide to take some type of action. |
|
|
New hire termination
posted at 6/10/2010 7:08 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 2442
First: 2/12/2000 Last: 9/14/2011 |
HRpro's comments are spot on. We must continue to foster an atmosphere of doing what is right and proper rather than merely doing what is legally required.
The person gave up another full time position based on your description and offer of employment. Given the current economic climate you have now put this person in a great deal of potential financial jeporardy. What if this is the sole breadwinner for a family? Smells real bad!! |
Forums » Topic Forums » General Forum » New hire termination
