We are letting go of Brian Carter simply because we no longer need his expertise. His advance certificate in VC++ is no longer an asset to us because we already pulling the plug on the online distribution department. This move of the company also makes his position redundant. Moreover, the need for his skills can already be carried by Carl Heimes. The decision to let go of Brian Carter is basically based on the comparison between him and Carl Heimes. They both have similar skills in computer and technology applications. And between the two of them, Carl Heimes is the better option to retain.
In contrast to Carl Heimes, Brian Carter is the second most absentee employee, next to Jenny Mills, of the five candidates. This means that Carl Heimes has the better attitude towards work. However, we have a huge legal obstacle to hurdle in laying off Brian Carter. He has developed a debilitating injury which affects his work. Should we terminate him, we might be facing a lawsuit for wrongful termination for discrimination on account of disability. And Brian Carter may able to prove a strong cause of action against us on this one. This is a big factor
Need essay sample on "Distribution department"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $ 13.90/page
At any rate, we we should abide by the decision to let go of Brian Carter. In case we will be sued for wrongful termination, we will just raise that the ground, the only ground for his termination is the redundancy of his skills. It is a business judgment and we will not be faulted for letting him go. The company is closing a department and it is inevitable that there will be a downsizing which will follow and in is unfortunate that we have to let him go because his skills are unneeded. In an event that we should face a lawsuit, perhaps we should at least try to settle with Brian Carter and come up with a compromise.
Brian Carter is solely responsible for programming the 3-D ‘drape-n-see’ mannequins and has given other valuable contributions to this company. He is our star programmer and he even developed a debilitating injury for working late to do his job. It will be a shame if we will refuse to help him after terminating his services and will rather spend company resources to finance protracted litigation. Sarah Boyd We are letting go of Sarah Boyd primarily because her position is redundant and her skills are no longer needed after the closure of our online distribution operations.
Sarah Boyd is an average performer with median productivity and with no significant special achievements in her stint with FastServe. Her skills in office administration are not that much of an asset because, as a sales-intensive company, our requirement of people with her skills are at a minimum. We will just explain to her that upon the closure of the online distribution department, her layoff has become inevitable. On an internal note, the decision to let go of Sarah Boyd is more of a tactical move considering that she is already of a rather advanced age compared to the other candidates.
We can no longer train her for another job description in a manner where we can expect optimal returns for the cost of training her. We are in very competitive industry and Sarah Boyd may not be able to keep pace with the direction we are going. Perhaps it is better to hire new people with office administration skills and train them rather than retain Sarah Boyd. The legal obstacles to terminating Sarah Boyd is a possible cause of action for discrimination because of age and for wrongful termination.
Should she raise discrimination as a cause of action, we will just abide by the business judgment principle and raise that her position has become redundant because of the closure of the online distribution department. Another factor is that Sarah Boyd is a full-time employee and has tenure with our company. Letting her go will provide her a cause of action for wrongful termination without just and authorized causes. True that the presumption is that employment is at will. However, should she raise wrongful termination, then the employment at will defense will not apply.
The remedy for this, in order to avoid it, is to work out a severance package that is acceptable to both Sarah Boyd and FastServe. Then perhaps after we work that out, we can ask her to sign a quitclaim to forego any and all other claims she may have due to the termination of her services. Jenny Mills We are terminating Jenny Mills because of her lack of dedication in her work and she has no critical skills which our company needs. She is just an average performer with a median productivity rating and with no significant special achievements.
To top it off, she has been absent for 14days for the last month. Her lack of dedication is just discouraging that the need to let her go is just too apparent to be ignored. Among the five candidates for termination, Jenny Mills is the easiest choice. We face no legal hurdles in terminating her except for breach of contract since she is a contractual employee, which could be easily countered by claiming the business judgment rule. We will just simply raise that her position has become redundant because of the closure of the online distribution department.
The decision becomes easier because her skills are non-critical. Moreover, her public relations skills and her experience in handling customer inquiry can already be absorbed by Nora Manson. Then the decision becomes a no-brainer when we consider that Jenny Mills is just not dedicated to her work. It boggles the mind how she could be absent for 14days the last month when rumors of downsizing are already spreading. This display of indifference on her part is simply shouting for termination. I hope you find these reasons sufficient to support the decision we are making. Have a nice day sir!