Criteria for Layoffs

GLC

We recently reduced our workforce and eliminated some positions because of budget problems. One of the employees has now filed a gender discrimination suit. I am finding it somewhat difficult to submit a defense because I know you are suppose to separate the person from the job when deciding who to layoff, and we did that. The problem is one of the criteria that we use to determinie who gets laid off is Performance History and needed skills. My defense is going to be to discuss this person's poor performance history over the last 2 years. Given that, would that seem as though I am focusing on the person and not the job that the person held. It seems impossible to defend without discussing the person. Any suggestions?

ray a

If this person was a low performer,then I believe you were justified in your decision. When we have layoffs, we determine who gets it by their ranking in the department. In some cases, a position may be eliminated and we tell the person that. With direct employees, the layoffs are associated with a lack of work. Our lowest performers are the ones layed off. (I can never remember if they are "layed" or "laid" off). Before, the final decision is made, I analyze the demographics for EEO concerns. I make sure we are not unfairly hitting a protected group, such as women or minorities, or minority women.

When laying off, you must do it fairly. If your criteria is performance, just make sure you can support your claim with evaluations, documented discipline, etc.

Gillian

I think that you are mixing up apples and oranges a bit. When you separate the person from the job when doing a layoff that means don't consider race, sex etc. etc. When you choose who to layoff and performance is one of the criteria that is used you have to consider the person.

Theresa Gegen TX

Generally, in a reoganization (as opposed to a straight Reduction in force) when you seperate the person from the job as I understand it, you look at the organization and skill sets that you need (Like putting together a blank org chart). What do we need going forward as job positions?

That way you eliminate or reform based positions that are needed, not based on specific employees.

Then you look at your new organization, and the pool of employees, and fill the jobs based on the best fit. This is where you look at individual skills and performance.

For a straight reduction in force type of action: You would say for example, we have 4 clerks, we are eliminating 25% of the clerks, so we now only need 3 clerks. We compare the 4 clerks and eliminate the lowest performer. The position may or may not be eliminated. The position may remain on the org chart, but just be unfilled due to lack of work for all the clerks.

Many times you will be engaged in actions that have both a reoganizational type componant and a straight reduction in force componant.

In responding to the EEOC charge, you should state all the reasons (truthfully). Individual performance is key for both types of actions.

Good Luck!