Beware the Gap Between What’s Legal and What’s Believable – How Good Is Your Story?

14 October 2019 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Author(s): Dabney D. Ware

Sometimes, asking “Can I fire this person?” is the wrong inquiry to begin with.  The better question may be “If I fire this person now, will my reasoning be believable to an outsider (especially a group of outsiders called a jury)?” 

Usually, the answer to the first question is “Yes – you can fire this person.”  But that answer does not help fully measure the employer’s risk - which involves taking a look at how else the story may be told.

A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which let a former employee’s FMLA interference and retaliation claims go to trial, provides a good example.

In that case, the company’s version of circumstances was along these lines:

In April, it decided a reduction in force (RIF) was needed.  This employee was selected because she had a limited skill set, and because her skills did not match the group’s work needs. In late May, the employee communicated about her medical condition and her anticipated need for leave.  About a week later, the RIF was implemented, which included the employee.  

Pause for a moment right there - if you’ve ever been involved in a RIF, those reasons - limited skills or a poor match between skills and available work - probably sound familiar.  Those are valid reasons to include someone in a RIF.  Plus, being able to say the RIF decision was made before the company knew of the employee’s medical issues sounds like the company was on very solid ground (and the jury may still decide that way).  But there was clearly more to the story and another believable interpretation of the facts, so the court concluded that a jury should get to decide. 

One obvious issue is the timing – the employee was released just about a week after alerting the company to her medical issues.  Another issue seems to be that the company placed too much emphasis on the limited skill set.  Apparently, there was so much evidence about her lack of skills, it created the impression that the employee would have been (or at least should have been) fired anyway. Why is that a problem?  Because it was inconsistent with company policy, which said that people impacted by a RIF were eligible for rehire. Another issue came from some internal staffing analysis, which indicated that the group in question was actually understaffed - not overstaffed, and that the company had never done a RIF when its own staffing metrics indicated more personnel was needed.

All of that combined led the judge to conclude the RIF could reasonably be viewed as a cover-up for unlawful discrimination. 

This outsider’s take is that the company made such a big deal of performance concerns (limited skill set), that it was hard to believe the employee was still around.  And that is one reason why a RIF should not be used as a substitute for directly dealing with an employee’s performance issues. 

Finally, we circle back to where we started – including the importance of thinking about what other story can be told from the facts.  Don’t just rely on valid legal reasons for a termination without considering what other version of events might be believed.  Assessing what’s legal and what’s believable are both important.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.


Related Services