Can the assistant district manager fire someone because people didn’t like him?

[Anonymous]

Someone got fired. He was a hard worker and never did anything outright such as harassment or anything but he had a weirdness to him. He was creepy and weird…. Though he never sexually harassed anybody he would stand around and I don’t know.

People complained about him all the time but it was the same old story about how there isn’t anything they can do unless he is doing something against policy. Eventually I guess our assistant DM got tired of hearing about him and pretty much set him up to fail.

First by cutting hours. Then putting him on a PIP plan and basically nit picked every little thing until he got rid of him. But then the individual who got fired went and filed a wrongful term lawsuit and accused the managers of harassment

[Oliverlogan263]

Whoa, that sounds like a really messy situation. From what you're describing, it seems like the assistant district manager (ADM) may have overstepped their bounds a bit in firing this employee, even if he was coming across as "creepy" to his coworkers.

The key issues I see are:

1. Cutting his hours and putting him on a PIP (Performance Improvement Plan) without documented, concrete performance issues - that could be seen as setting him up to fail, which is not okay.

2. Nitpicking every little thing to eventually justify termination, rather than having legitimate, well-documented performance problems.

3. Basing the firing mainly on complaints from other employees, rather than clear policy violations or job performance issues.

Even if this guy was socially awkward or made people uncomfortable, that alone doesn't justify termination, especially in the way it seems to have been handled. The managers should have given clear feedback, chances to improve, and properly documented any actual performance problems.

The wrongful termination lawsuit also seems warranted if the process was as shady as you described. The managers likely overstepped their authority and used questionable tactics to get rid of this employee, which could absolutely open them up to legal trouble.

In the future, managers need to stick to fair, transparent processes and focus on actual job performance, not just co-worker discomfort. Terminating someone just because they're "weird" is a legal minefield. Hopefully your company learns from this experience.

[DishLady]

Well... YES and NO. NO, that can't be the ONLY REASON the person is fired, however if someone is not socially acclimating to their work environment there is the "look, you don't seem to be a good fit for this department" talk, which comes with a possible suggestion to transfer to a different department/location/etc. YES, within a probationary period it's OK to let a person go when they don't seem like a good fit.

Of the person has passed their probationary period and has NO REASON to be fired other than the fact that people don't like him/her, the team is stuck with this person for a while. In one or two cases I saw the team sabotage the person they didn't like by keeping the person out of the loop on some projects so that the person then seemed incompetent, which then WAS grounds for dismissal.

[Asker]

Part time employees generally have less protections as full time ones do though you can still discriminate and get into trouble with that.

You really have to read between the lines in the employment world because people can’t tell you what they really thing. So it will be formalities and corporate PR jargon. But legally speaking you should get as much in writing as possible and use it to the letter.

When you and a employer are signing off on a document that really holds them to what they’re saying. They can’t say one thing and go and claim they said another. When it’s your word against theirs

[Asker]

*really thinking I mean

[Asker]

Good employers are direct and don’t play catty games. If they don’t think you’re a good fit they will tell you. They won’t beat around the bush and claim something is for one reason when it’s really another type of crap.

But unfortunately many times it’s just simply not like that. A lot of times it’s playing little games to either push you out or trap you in a situation where they can terminate you.

[Asker]

Asking for a PIP plan means they have to articulate what someone’s doing wrong. Whether that’s performance, being chronically late or absent, insubordination, theft, and things of that nature.

They may act like they’re doing you some favor by having private conversations which in some cases they are. If the conversations are constructive and a genuine attempt to help someone improve.

But when that’s not the case. Getting something in writing they have to sign off on goes a lot longer ways. You can hold them to it. Legally speaking. They have to document performance issues etc.

[Asker]

Keeping someone out of the loop is another issue. When people just are quiet around a certain person. They may say hi or be fake nice but you will notice they are less talkative to you.

A lot of people start getting angry when they’re working with them. Especially if you’re new not getting any feed back is worse then getting negative feedback. If it’s constructive criticism.

When it’s past the point of no return. They aren’t going to work with you anymore especially if you’re still in a probationary period. They’re busy but yet somehow have time to chit chat and goof around with one another

[AI Opinion]

Employment decisions must be justified by documented performance issues or policy violations. Firing someone solely because of their personality traits, without documented performance issues, can be legally questionable. In the situation you've described, it seems the reasons for dismissal were not directly related to job performance or policy breaches. The wrongful termination lawsuit suggests there could be grounds for questioning the fairness and legality of the firing. It's essential for employers to handle such situations with clear, documented evidence and fair processes to defend against potential legal challenges. Consulting a legal professional would be wise for both parties involved.