Progressive Discipline Question about Unrelated Reprimands

[Hunterman]

Minnesota

I have worked for the same company for 28 years. I had never been reprimanded for anything. Four months ago I received an oral reprimand for something minor. This week I was reprimanded again for something else completely unrelated to the first reprimand. This was also a minor infraction. This time I was given a written reprimand. The second reprimand was written because they are claiming it's my second offense. Is the employer interpreting this correctly or should each minor offense begin with an oral reprimand? What follows is the entire progressive discipline language in the contract.

1) The employer shall have the right to discipline employees for just cause.
2) Disciplinary actions by the employer shall include the following actions and will typically follow steps in sequence, depending on the seriousness of the infraction.
1. oral reprimand
2. written reprimand
3. suspension without pay
4. discharge

Your thoughts and advice are appreciated. Thank you.

 

[Just Blue]

Minnesota

I have worked for the same company for 28 years. I had never been reprimanded for anything. Four months ago I received an oral reprimand for something minor. This week I was reprimanded again for something else completely unrelated to the first reprimand. This was also a minor infraction. This time I was given a written reprimand. The second reprimand was written because they are claiming it's my second offense. Is the employer interpreting this correctly or should each minor offense begin with an oral reprimand? What follows is the entire progressive discipline language in the contract.

1) The employer shall have the right to discipline employees for just cause.
2) Disciplinary actions by the employer shall include the following actions and will typically follow steps in sequence, depending on the seriousness of the infraction.
1. oral reprimand
2. written reprimand
3. suspension without pay
4. discharge

Your thoughts and advice are appreciated. Thank you.

The employer is interpreting it correctly. 1st reprimand was oral and second was written per the contract.

 

[Just Blue]

@cbg

I am tagging out HR expert for you.

 

[AlmostThere]

To be honest, if you are receiving multiple disciplinary actions, you should be updating your resume and LinkedIn profile.

 

[cbg]

First, I don't see that the employer has violated the language of the contract.

Second, even if he has, the language says that it will "typically" follow this format. It does not say that there cannot be variations.

Is the real issue here that your infractions were what you term, minor? If so, know that it's not your judgement that counts but your employer's.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

Minnesota

I have worked for the same company for 28 years. I had never been reprimanded for anything. Four months ago I received an oral reprimand for something minor. This week I was reprimanded again for something else completely unrelated to the first reprimand. This was also a minor infraction. This time I was given a written reprimand. The second reprimand was written because they are claiming it's my second offense. Is the employer interpreting this correctly or should each minor offense begin with an oral reprimand? What follows is the entire progressive discipline language in the contract.

1) The employer shall have the right to discipline employees for just cause.
2) Disciplinary actions by the employer shall include the following actions and will typically follow steps in sequence, depending on the seriousness of the infraction.
1. oral reprimand
2. written reprimand
3. suspension without pay
4. discharge

Your thoughts and advice are appreciated. Thank you.

You might want to get a consult with an employment attorney regarding age discrimination or any other unlawful discrimination that may apply. It will take an attorney to outsmart the employer.

You’ve worked 28 years with no reprimands and the supervisor (or higher) may need some management training or other action after scrutiny from HR and an impending lawsuit. Depending on the type of business, employers hate public scrutiny.

 

[cbg]

Bali - good catch. I obviously need more coffee. I totally missed that this was a 28 year employee.

Poster - it may be nothing, but it's worth the cost of a consultation.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Written employment contracts are not at all common in the U.S. with the notable exceptions union contracts and situations where the employee has some particular skill that is hard for the employer to replace at the same skill level (for example high level executives in very large businesses, professional athletes, etc).

A lot of documents that employers call a contract don't meet the requirements in the law for an enforceable contract. What kind of work do you do? Was this agreement one in which the key terms (like pay, hours, duties, etc) were actually negotiated between you and the employer or was this a document that the employer presented to you as a take or leave it situation? When was the supposed contract entered into? Before you were employed or some point after? If it was some point after, did the terms and conditions include anything that you weren't already doing or change your compensation? Most employees that I see that say they have employment contracts actually don't have a legally binding contract, though their employers like to make their employees think that they do.

This is a very important distinction because a breach of contract claim can be easier to prove than an employment discrimination case, especially an age discrimination case. It is possible to sue for both breach of contract and wrongful termination the same lawsuit, but the evidence you need will be different for each claim. If you sue you want to include as many claims as you have evidence for to increase your chances to win on at least one claim and also to potentially increase your damage award if you win.

If you go see an employment law attorney (and I recommend you do) ask about both the supposed contract and the possibility of an age discrimination claim. When meeting with the attorney have a copy of that supposed contract and anything else that relates to your employer, especially performance reviews and any written warning you've been given. Keep track of all efforts you've made to meet what they've asked for.

Consulting an attorney now will allow you to get advice that may save your job or help you get the kind of evidence you'll need should you sue the employer.

 

[Hunterman]

Thank you, everyone, for the information. Here's more about the situation. I am a public school teacher and have taught in the same school and in the same position for 28 years. The progressive discipline policy is from the union contract with the school district. I have re-read both reprimands and it doesn't say in either one exactly what they are claiming I did. For example, the latest reprimand comes from my lesson plans from when I took a week of leave last month. I used a similar lesson plan to one that I've used at different times for 28 years. In the reprimand it describes that I was gone for a week and then it describes what is expected to be in a substitute lesson plan. It then says that after a thorough investigation I am directed to put A, B, C, D, etc. in my lesson plans. It never says that I didn't have that in the plan. It's implying that I didn't have that information in the plan when I did have the information in the plan. The first reprimand was for not modifying assignments for special education students even though I showed them exactly what I was doing for modifying. The reprimand (this one was verbal even though it was in writing) also says what is expected to be done for modifications and gives me directives to do that, but it also never directly accuses me of not doing modifications.

Usually in a grievance you can grieve facts, but not opinions. By leaving out any direct accusations it's difficult to grieve because there are no facts to grieve.

There are several possibilities for these reprimands.
1) I am a the union lead negotiator and in the last four months I brought concerns from the building forward during negotiations for possible contact language to deal with the concerns. The reprimands could be retaliation for that.
2) I am the fourth highest paid teacher in the building. The top two are retiring this year and the third is retiring the next year. An older teacher can be replaced with a newer teaching making half the salary and the budget is tight right now.
3) Bad leadership - there have been several questionable decisions by administration this year including telling an overworked, stressed out teacher that she should consider getting on some sort of medication to reduce her job provoked anxiety.
4) Maybe I've become a terrible teacher and these reprimands were needed.

 

[AlmostThere]

Thank you, everyone, for the information. Here's more about the situation. I am a public school teacher and have taught in the same school and in the same position for 28 years. The progressive discipline policy is from the union contract with the school district. I have re-read both reprimands and it doesn't say in either one exactly what they are claiming I did. For example, the latest reprimand comes from my lesson plans from when I took a week of leave last month. I used a similar lesson plan to one that I've used at different times for 28 years. In the reprimand it describes that I was gone for a week and then it describes what is expected to be in a substitute lesson plan. It then says that after a thorough investigation I am directed to put A, B, C, D, etc. in my lesson plans. It never says that I didn't have that in the plan. It's implying that I didn't have that information in the plan when I did have the information in the plan. The first reprimand was for not modifying assignments for special education students even though I showed them exactly what I was doing for modifying. The reprimand (this one was verbal even though it was in writing) also says what is expected to be done for modifications and gives me directives to do that, but it also never directly accuses me of not doing modifications.

Usually in a grievance you can grieve facts, but not opinions. By leaving out any direct accusations it's difficult to grieve because there are no facts to grieve.

There are several possibilities for these reprimands.
1) I am a the union lead negotiator and in the last four months I brought concerns from the building forward during negotiations for possible contact language to deal with the concerns. The reprimands could be retaliation for that.
2) I am the fourth highest paid teacher in the building. The top two are retiring this year and the third is retiring the next year. An older teacher can be replaced with a newer teaching making half the salary and the budget is tight right now.
3) Bad leadership - there have been several questionable decisions by administration this year including telling an overworked, stressed out teacher that she should consider getting on some sort of medication to reduce her job provoked anxiety.
4) Maybe I've become a terrible teacher and these reprimands were needed.

Have the lesson plan requirements for substitute teachers changed? Does it require standard lesson plans and additional lesson plans for special educaiton lesson plans?
Did you provide proof that your lesson plan meets the current requirements?

 

[Hunterman]

The requirements listed in the staff handbook haven't changed, but the principal has told me to add additional information, like a list that has a student in each class who a sub could get information from. There aren't specific plans for special education beyond what's in their individual plans. I provided copies of several lesson plans that showed I meet the handbook requirements. The staff handbook is approved by the school board every year.