Reduction in Force(Discrimination?)

[MBarneslaw]

Oklahoma:

I was given a written consultation stating that I failed to meet a deliverable in a timely manner. Considering this is my first consultation I considered it to be a notice of displeasure with a request to improve. Instead I was told that my last day will be 1/5/06 as a reduction in force.

I am 40yrs old and a manager for 1yr. Another manager with less than two months tenure will remain. My statistics which is measurable is equal if not exceeds my peers performance. I have no prior consultations or documentation stating dissatisfaction with my work.

There are current policies in place that is consistently not met by the company, managers or employees. Decisions are made arbitrarily. There is definitive proof of manager’s failing to meet daily, weekly responsibilities. Attendance and Punctuality policies are clearly stated and not adhered. A single mom who fails to report to work on 1 or 2 occasions is terminated….another male is released after more that 20 absence/tardiness which was allowed by a manager appears biased. A policy to release an associate after 8 occurrences is exceeded by 10, 15 or 20 additional occurrences.

I would consider a negative action taken against me would be the result of my failure to meet reasonable deliverables. However, in an environment that is excessive in it’s application of policy seems discriminatory.

 

[justalayman]

What you have stated seems more discretionary than discriminatory. Although some of the circumstances might hint at discrimination, each on its' own does not seem to show this.

An employer can give one employee 1 chance and the next 20 chances to improve if they wish. As long as they do not discriminate based on Title VII specified reasons, they are generally free to direct the work force as they see fit.

 

[MBarneslaw]

Discretionary treatment?

An employer can apply a random discretion even with policies in place? Also, I just want to be treated on a level playing field. If not level...is it the burden at all for the employer to apply decision without evidence of balance decisioning making?

Could age be a factor? Below is an excerpt from my many web searches on the topic:

When the discrimination is alleged to have occurred in the context of a reduction-in-force, the plaintiff’s initial burden is to show that (1) he was in the protected age group; (2) he was performing to the employer’s legitimate expectation[/I]; (3) despite his performance he was discharged; and (4) substantially younger employees who were similarly situated were treated more favorably. . . . Once plaintiff satisfies the original burden, the employer must come forward with a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, and if it does, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of showing that the proffered reason is a pretext for age discrimination.

I believe I can demonstrate the above listing.

 

[HomeGuru]

An employer can apply a random discretion even with policies in place? Also, I just want to be treated on a level playing field. If not level...is it the burden at all for the employer to apply decision without evidence of balance decisioning making?

Could age be a factor? Below is an excerpt from my many web searches on the topic:

When the discrimination is alleged to have occurred in the context of a reduction-in-force, the plaintiff’s initial burden is to show that (1) he was in the protected age group; (2) he was performing to the employer’s legitimate expectation[/I]; (3) despite his performance he was discharged; and (4) substantially younger employees who were similarly situated were treated more favorably. . . . Once plaintiff satisfies the original burden, the employer must come forward with a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, and if it does, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of showing that the proffered reason is a pretext for age discrimination.

I believe I can demonstrate the above listing.

**A: thus far you have not provided evidence that discrimination has occurred.

 

[MBarneslaw]

Is this an "At Will" Situation?

I take it that other than searching for another job...there is no recourse.

A manager has shown up drunk and was suspended. Another used verbal harrasment (profanity) to subordinates in a meeting no less and no action taken. I am told they are reducing the work force.

An employer can apply a random discretion even with clear policies in place?
Is it not the burden of any employer to be consistent?

 

[HomeGuru]

I take it that other than searching for another job...there is no recourse.

A manager has shown up drunk and was suspended. Another used verbal harrasment (profanity) to subordinates in a meeting no less and no action taken. I am told they are reducing the work force.

An employer can apply a random discretion even with clear policies in place?
Is it not the burden of any employer to be consistent?

**A: even with your additional comments, my post stands as written.

 

[CheeseBlotto]

An employer can apply a random discretion even with clear policies in place?

Generally, yes.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Generally, yes.

Actually, always yes (assuming they are non-discrimintory random choices). I don't know why people have this idea that a company's internal policies and procedures have the same weight as regular laws, but they do not. They have no meaning whatsoever. The company is free to ignore them or break them or randomly follow them, and their doing so does not give rise to any valid lawsuit.

 

[Gadfly]

A reduction in workforce is generally the first of many as a company begins its downhill slide. If they don't get you now they'll get you in one of the next rounds.

Gather up your stuff and find a new job. Best bet? Get even. Go to work for the competition.