Overview: Employee discipline can improve communication with employees and foster positive outcomes - but only if used effectively. An employee's professional development may be aided by any number of measures, including targeted employee training and development or a referral to counseling. However, disciplinary action should also be used to ensure compliance with work rules and to promote workplace safety. In addition, employee discipline is a natural next step if an employee has not complied with a performance improvement plan (PIP) or action plan.
Although progressive discipline may be adequate to address many situations, at times immediate suspension or termination must be used. Employers need the proper tools to tackle commonplace workplace discipline situations, such as poor attendance, substance abuse and workplace theft. These tools include a variety of resources to aid in conducting discipline successfully, including internal policies and procedures and customized warnings.
Trends: States continue to enact legislation enlarging employee protections regarding an array of activities, ranging from smoking to voting to weapons possession. In addition, employees continue to make external agency complaints or file court claims under statutes with antiretaliation or whistleblower protections, such as federal and state False Claims Acts. Depending on state law, employers may be restricted from taking a number of actions during a disciplinary investigation, e.g., employee drug or polygraph testing. In other instances, an employer's failure to adequately discipline an employee or to document the results of a disciplinary investigation may pose greater liability problems, such as in the case of an external agency probe or an employment discrimination lawsuit.
Author: Marta Moakley, JD, Legal Editor
In-depth review of the spectrum of Arizona employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to performance appraisals.
In-depth review of the spectrum of New Jersey employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to Employee Discipline
The Supreme Court has ruled that employees of private companies that contract with public companies are covered by the whistleblower protections found in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). The Court's ruling in Lawson v. FMR, LLC preserves the relatively broad interpretation of SOX's whistleblower provisions favored by the US Department of Labor (DOL).
A 6th Circuit Court of Appeals case (Deleon v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission) suggests that a lateral transfer, even if initially requested by an employee, may be considered an adverse employment action under federal antidiscrimination laws when the terms and conditions of the transfer are inferior to what the employee originally sought.
This new form can help an employer identify areas of underperformance and encourage appropriate goal setting.
An employer may use this form to address poor performance in a way that specifically identifies areas of underperformance and encourages appropriate goal setting. The PIP process is much more individualized and requires an employee to be actively engaged in solving performance problems.
In-depth review of the spectrum of District of Columbia employment law requirements HR must follow with respect Employee Discipline
Workplace betting pools can be popular at workplaces this time of year, with events like the Super Bowl and the NCAA College Basketball Tournament providing opportunities for gamesmanship and team-building. While these activities can foster excitement in the workplace and allow employees to find common ground on issues outside of work, an employer should be aware of the downside of these pools.
As mandated by the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial relations, Hawaii employers must post the Hawaii Whistleblower Protection Law Poster.
HR and legal considerations regarding fair and consistent employee discipline. Advice on disciplining with effective results, no discrimination.