In this particular scenario, the firm has the right to terminate the employee on grounds that the employee’s performance, skills, competence and abilities do not match the requirements of the job position. On legal grounds, any firm has the right to dismiss an employee if there is sufficient evidence to prove that his performance is below the requirements of the job, which in this case is the employee’s inability to learn fundamental computer applications that is a basic requirement for his job responsibilities. It is apparent that the employee is unproductive and inefficient even after receiving training; as a result, the firm is legally permitted to fire the employee according to the provisions outlined in the employment-at-will doctrine. It is apparent that in the above case, all the progressive discipline policy options, such as training and support, yet the employee has not demonstrated substantial performance improvements; thus, the firm is legally allowed to dismiss the employee.
In this case, firing the employee cannot be considered as a case of wrongful termination, since the employee was a liability for the firm. Thus, there is no likelihood of legal implications arising from the case provided. The company tried all disciplinary policy options, such as warning unproductive employees and giving the opportunities for performance improvement. In addition, there are no exceptions to the employment-at-will that are applicable to this particular scenario.
The preventive measures that the firm can use to reduce ant potential liability or risk on its part entail developing a comprehensive hiring and recruitment platform in order to ensure that the firm gets the top talent for the job position. For instance, minimizing short-term employee termination and subsequent employment lawsuits require the firm to perform a series of evaluations on the shortlisted candidates for the job, such evaluating their resumes, comprehensive interview, medical exams and test evaluations among others. This has the goal of ensuring that the firm hires a person who is qualified for that particular job requirement. In addition, it is the role of the firm to ensure that recruits are people who will fully satisfy the job requirements; the employment steps that can be implemented to achieve this include putting the newly hired employee under probation in order to assess their skills, abilities and competencies after which the results of the probation assessment will be used to make the decision whether to employ or terminate the employee.
Regardless of the fact that a company’s legal policy is not considered as a legal document, it is imperative to use the employment-at-will doctrine to emphasize on the consequences of violating the company’s late policy. In this case, the employment-at-will doctrine will provide a basis through which disciplinary actions can be taken in cases of violations of the firm’s late policy. When implementing a late policy in the company, it is imperative to make it formal by ensuring that employees read and sign it in order to indicate that they have understood the requirements of the company’s late policy and are obligated to comply with them. This plays an integral role in minimizing any liability arising from violation of the company’s policies . Liabilities on the part of the employer can also be minimized by regularly reminding the employee the underlying reasons for assenting to the company’s late policy. In this particular case, disciplinary warnings will be issued and the employee given a chance to change her behavior and comply with the late policy, failure to which creates a plausible cause for firing the employee. It is essential for the manager to document all evidence indicating the employee’s unexcused tardiest behavior and performance issues in order to indicate that any disciplinary action undertaken was not based on protected activity.
Under the at-will-employment doctrine, a number of exceptions exist that protect the employee against such terminations as terminating employees basing on their gender, race, age, disability, compensation claims and forcing the employee to take part in illegal acts; all of these fall under public policy exceptions. In this case, if the undertaken disciplinary action does not violate the stated exceptions, dismissing this employee would not be considered as wrongful termination. The employment-at-will doctrine protects rights of both employers and employees. Provided that the disciplinary action undertaken by an employer does contravene the rights of the employee, the employer can fire the employee with or without cause, and whether in good or bad faith.
In such a case, the manager should issue a written warning to the employee for violations of various rules, such as absenteeism without informing the management, particularly during the tax season when the firm was very busy; disrupting the business operations of the company, especially during working hours; and violating the administrative rules of the firm. This written warning acts as evidence that a disciplinary measure was taken, failure to which subsequent violations of rules will result in the dismissal of the employee. In this particular case, the firm is not legally permitted to terminate the employee basing on the unscheduled break for a religious holiday although she can be reprimanded. The reprimand will be justified on grounds that the employee went on holiday with approval from the management and violating the company policy of taking a break during the tax season.
Regardless of the fact that employers are not compelled to satisfy all the desires of an employee through accommodating one’s religious beliefs, firms are to make realistic provisions, such as giving an employee a break to observe religious holidays. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the employers do not have rights, especially in relation to discrimination that bases on sex, religion, color, race and ethnicity. With these legal implications, the employer cannot terminate the employee using the at-will-employment doctrine. Under this particular scenario, there are no exceptions applicable to the employment-at-will doctrine.
According to the existing HR strategy, the supervisor breached the procedures and policies by soliciting personal relationship with his subordinate. This sort of subordination warrants immediate dismissal of the supervisor owing to the fact that sexual advances act as a breach of the professional code of ethics. This breach creates potential liability for the firm because of the sexual harassment directed at the female subordinate employee. This warrants the need to conduct an investigation into the case. Taking into account the fact that the female employee failed to file for a sexual harassment claim, it can be argued that her decision to take part in the relationship was somewhat premeditated owing to the fact that her decision was reached after a number of advice and consulting with her girlfriend on the matter. Personal relationships within the workplace tend to affect productivity of the employees involved and moral problems among staff members. The case is violation of the company’s policies and the firm, under the at-will-employment, can dismiss the involved parties without any subsequent legal ramifications. However, there are other issues that should be taken into consideration prior to the decision, such as the performance record of the involved employees and how their personal relationships affect their productivity and efficiency at work.
Read more blogs on https://prime-essay.net/