Excerpted from Louisiana Employment Law Letter, written by attorneys at the law firm Jones Walker
The author Saki (H.H. Munro) once wrote, "A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanations." Some of you may share that sentiment when it comes to firing employees. Some people feel more comfortable playing the "nice guy" by telling employees that they're being fired for some reason other than their deficient performance or bad behavior. But that can backfire.
For example, if you're sued for sex discrimination, the court may suspect that your dishonesty was a ruse to conceal illegal discrimination rather than a "white lie" meant to save the employee's feelings or your own discomfort.
One court in Louisiana recently considered whether lying to employees about the reason they're being fired isn't, in and of itself, illegal. While the answer may be the one you've been hoping for, keep reading to see why we still say honesty is the best policy.
Reading between the lines
The employer was a company that specialized in conveyor systems for industrial facilities. It hired two kinds of employees - "salaried superintendents," who were paid a salary and benefits and were considered a fixed expense, and "nonsalaried superintendents," who were employed as needed, were paid an hourly rate, and didn't participate in the employer's benefit plan. The employee was hired as a nonsalaried superintendent for a specific project. As a nonsalaried superintendent, he didn't have an employment contract or a guarantee of a job for a specific period of time.
When one of the salaried superintendents completed a job in another country and returned, the employer fired the nonsalaried superintendent. It gave his job to the returning superintendent because he was under contract. According to the employer, it was more economical to give him the position because it was obligated to pay him under the terms of his contract regardless of whether he was actually working.
The nonsalaried superintendent sued his former employer in a Louisiana state court for wrongful termination, complaining that he wasn't fired as a result of a "reduction in force" as the employer originally claimed but because of his job performance. In other words, the employee said his discharge was unlawful because the employer gave an inaccurate reason for it. He also claimed that the employer damaged his reputation and intentionally caused him emotional distress because one of the employees allegedly posted a photograph of him in the plant's guardhouse with instructions to prohibit him from entering.
The employer asked the trial court to dismiss the case on the basis that it's not unlawful to provide an inaccurate or false reason for firing an employee and because, it argued, the superintendent couldn't possibly prevail on his other claims. The trial court agreed. The superintendent appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by finding that the at-will rule of employment permitted an employer to fire an employee for a reason the employer knows to be false.
Fire at will
On appeal, the court considered the superintendent's allegation that the employer initially told him he was being fired because of some construction mishaps in the project he was supervising. He argued that he was the "sacrificial lamb" for mistakes that allegedly were made on the job but that the employer falsely stated he was let go as part of a workforce reduction and that the at-will rule wasn't intended to protect an employer in that situation.
The court explained that employment is at will when it can be ended at the will of either the employer or the employee. When employees don't have a specific contract or agreement that establishes a fixed term of employment, at-will employees are free to quit at any time, and employers may fire employees at any time as long as they're not firing them for an unlawful reason (e.g., because of race or age). The court stated that an employer may fire an at-will employee regardless of whether the reason is accurate, fair, or reasonable or whether there's any reason at all.
The court decided that as long as the "false" reason wasn't a pretext for an illegal decision, it didn't matter whether the employer lied to the superintendent about why he was being fired. The court noted that if he was fired for a deficiency in his work performance, that in itself was a valid reason for firing him.
Additionally, the court found that the superintendent came "far short" of showing that the employer intentionally caused him emotional distress or damaged his reputation. The court stated that nothing about the employer's conduct was extreme or outrageous. The superintendent had no evidence that the photograph of him that was posted in the guardhouse, which was later removed, somehow damaged his reputation or was intended to cause him emotional distress. The court also noted that he found another job within a week of being fired. It agreed with the trial court's decision to dismiss his case. Clark v. Acco Systems, Inc., 2005 La. App. LEXIS 837 (La. App. 2 Cir. 04/05/05).
Sometimes the truth hurts, but honesty is still the best policy
Despite the favorable ruling for the employer in this case, it's best to be honest with employees when you take any adverse employment action against them, whether it's passing them up for a promotion, denying them a raise, or firing them. Why? First, they'll learn where they need to improve (either to do better at your workplace or to succeed at the next job) and what mistakes they made. Second, you won't have to worry about looking like you're trying to hide something if they sue you. And even if you're able to defeat the lawsuit in the end, it will cost you plenty in financial and human resources.
Don't think that giving no reason at all is better than a white lie - leaving employees in the dark usually causes them to speculate about your motives and may cause them to seek answers from a lawyer, union, or governmental agency. Be straight, to the point, and respectful when conveying employment decisions and you'll increase your chances of staying out of court.
