What rights does management have?
What rights do management have against an employee that constantly claims "retaliation or harrassment" when they are not true allegations. The employee seems very paranoid, and defensive all the time, and when asked or told to do something pertaining to thier job they challenge me. When they lose because he/she is wrong, it is retaliation. So, where can I reference my rights as managment and the false allegations I am facing.
1 answer | asked Oct 25, 2011 8:24 PM [EST] in Other | applies to GeorgiaAnswers (1)
Georgia, like most states is an at-will employment state, which largely means that any employee can be terminated at any time for any reason except in a few select circumstances that are illegal. At will employment does prohibit terminating someone on the basis of membership in a protected class or what most of us know as discrimination. Thus, you cannot terminate or otherwise discipline someone because of their race, gender, national origin, disability status, etc. In addition, the at-will employment doctrine may be waived where an employer voluntarily chooses to adopt a policy that says that employees can only be fired for good cause or in instances where a signed employment contract that guarantees continued employment exists.
The employee’s claim of harassment and retaliation are key elements of discrimination law, however, all of the employment laws clearly require that the employee meet the requirement of being qualified to do their job. The anti-discrimination laws are not intended to protect poorly performing employees. A person cannot maintain that they were qualified to do their job while failing to perform the requirements of their job position. Likewise, in order to maintain a discrimination claim, an employee must show that they are treated less favorably than others because of prejudicial views concerning such qualities as their age, gender, disability, race, religious preference, sexual orientation, or ethnic origin. If everyone in the same job category is subjected to the same treatment and given the same tasks, then there cannot be discrimination.
Unfortunately, individuals sometimes claim discrimination without understanding the legal standard. Although you have indicated that your intent is not discriminatory and you believe the employee’s claim arise out of paranoia, you may want to do a little investigation into the basis of their prior complaints. For instance, if the employee is alleging discrimination on the basis of religion, consider whether the employee can identify individuals in their same job category but of a different religion that were treated better in terms of assignments, pay, etc. If they cannot, they cannot meet the legal standard. In spite of this, you may want to outline your performance expectations for the employee and reiterate that your requests arise not from an intent to discriminate but rather from a reasonable expectation that the employee will complete the assigned tasks as part of their duties.
Finally, you want to consider whether there has been a significant change in the employee's duties over time that would lead them to believe they are being subjected to disparate treatment. Has the employee taken on a larger workload or been asked to work later? Courts largely respect the business judgment rule which permits companies to make non-discriminatory employment decisions in the interest of business. Thus if the employee is subjected to a non-discriminatory adverse employment decision, such as demotion, transfer, or increased workload due to a business necessity, then the decision is protected under the law. However, it never hurts to communicate to the employee how they will be directly affected by the decision so the understand that it is out of business necessity rather than discriminatory intent.
posted by Ronda Higgins Thornton | Oct 26, 2011 11:14 AM [EST]
The employee’s claim of harassment and retaliation are key elements of discrimination law, however, all of the employment laws clearly require that the employee meet the requirement of being qualified to do their job. The anti-discrimination laws are not intended to protect poorly performing employees. A person cannot maintain that they were qualified to do their job while failing to perform the requirements of their job position. Likewise, in order to maintain a discrimination claim, an employee must show that they are treated less favorably than others because of prejudicial views concerning such qualities as their age, gender, disability, race, religious preference, sexual orientation, or ethnic origin. If everyone in the same job category is subjected to the same treatment and given the same tasks, then there cannot be discrimination.
Unfortunately, individuals sometimes claim discrimination without understanding the legal standard. Although you have indicated that your intent is not discriminatory and you believe the employee’s claim arise out of paranoia, you may want to do a little investigation into the basis of their prior complaints. For instance, if the employee is alleging discrimination on the basis of religion, consider whether the employee can identify individuals in their same job category but of a different religion that were treated better in terms of assignments, pay, etc. If they cannot, they cannot meet the legal standard. In spite of this, you may want to outline your performance expectations for the employee and reiterate that your requests arise not from an intent to discriminate but rather from a reasonable expectation that the employee will complete the assigned tasks as part of their duties.
Finally, you want to consider whether there has been a significant change in the employee's duties over time that would lead them to believe they are being subjected to disparate treatment. Has the employee taken on a larger workload or been asked to work later? Courts largely respect the business judgment rule which permits companies to make non-discriminatory employment decisions in the interest of business. Thus if the employee is subjected to a non-discriminatory adverse employment decision, such as demotion, transfer, or increased workload due to a business necessity, then the decision is protected under the law. However, it never hurts to communicate to the employee how they will be directly affected by the decision so the understand that it is out of business necessity rather than discriminatory intent.
posted by Ronda Higgins Thornton | Oct 26, 2011 11:14 AM [EST]
