Layoffs - deciding who
Gene
1 Post
I have a small company with 5 employees (4 female and 1 male) in the travel industry and given what has happened we need to lay off two people because we dont have work for them and we need to cut costs drastically. One of the employees we are considering letting go is 55 years old, has been with us a year (has the 2nd least seniority) and has a higher salary than the others. There have been a few performance issues that have been discussed informally with her but they are not things that would cause us to terminate her. We perceive this to be a temporary layoff as we would probably like to have them back when business comes back. The other two candidates are young in their twenties. One is expecting a child in January, and is expecting to take significant time off w/o pay during/after the delivery. She has the 3rd least seniority (has also been with us about a year but a few weeks longer than the 55 year old). The other young candidate has the least seniority (been with us about 8 months) but generates more revenue for us because she has her own personal clients she brings to the table. The other two employees have been with us for more than 3 years, one is a manager, and we arent considering them. The only thing that makes sense from a business standpoint is to layoff the older employee (more cost savings) and the expecting younger one who will not be available for significant periods of time in the near future and doesnt bring additional revenue. I am woried about what we can and cant use for criteria in the decision process. They all have employment agreements that expressly reiterate the "at will" condition of their employment.
Any idea what the rules of this game are?
Any idea what the rules of this game are?
Comments
Since you have so few employees, you're not covered by most federal employment laws (unless you're connected to a larger company). But you still could get in legal trouble. Some states have similar statutes that cover smaller employers. And a smart lawyer could figure out how to sue you anyway under the vague and confusing theory of "public policy."
The older employee might sue for age discrimination (technically it's OK to consider salary when laying off, but it's dancing on thin ice). The pregnant employee could sue for sex or pregnancy discrimination. (For example, Hawaii's pregnancy statute applies to employers with only ONE employee.)
If you think there's a real risk of a lawsuit, you should talk to a lawyer in your state. If you don't have one, you could contact the lawyer who writes our Employment Law Letter in your state.
[url]http://www.hrhero.com/findanattorney.shtml[/url]
Good luck.
James Sokolowski
Senior Editor
M. Lee Smith Publishers
My suggestion would be this: 1) confirm that your state law doesn't apply to you in the event of a claim for discrimination based on sex or age; {While the easiest and most understandable method would be last hired, first to go, I also understand your dilemma. Reducing hours of the younger folks will jeopardize your revenues (but remember these people are not likely to make a career with you) and reducing the hours of the older lady will help you reduce expenses.}, so................ 2) I would reduce the hours of the last hired person. It's a more understandable posture for your customers to understand, it has a sense of fairness and it says to people that work for you-----I value your length of service with me and I'll try to recognize that. Future fluctuations in business volume may be tolerated better by the older employee vs. the younger ones with family obligations, etc......
There are too many issues to address via this post, but that's my bottom line suggestion.