A layoff is pending, and you need to decide on whom to let
go. You review employees’ performance evaluations, thinking
this is one of the most objective ways to make your decision.
But terminating an employee based on a performance rating
could spark a retaliatory fire.
SO-CALLED SHODDY PERFORMER...
Three months into her job, Janice Wong received her first
performance review. Supervisor Brett Johnson rated her overall
performance as a 3.7 out of a possible 5.0 and referred
to her as an “excellent team player.” Department head Shirley
Zarbo agreed.
A few months later, Wong complained to Johnson that a co-worker
called her disparaging names and tried to kick and trip
her. Johnson assured Wong that he would put an end to it
and she would have nothing to worry about. But weeks later,
Wong was still being subjected to the name-calling and kicking.
Not only that, but the co-worker also wrote nasty things
about her, mimicked her accent, and messed her hair with
his hands on a regular basis.
So once again she complained to Johnson. This cycle of
harassment, complaining, and more harassment continued for
a year. When it was time for another performance review,
Johnson issued Wong an overall score of 3.04 and noted that
she needed to become involved in team efforts and had failed
to assume responsibility to help resolve conflicts. He also
wrote that Wong had excelled at an important assignment.
Zarbo didn’t question Johnson’s judgment and signed off
on the appraisal.
...STIRS UP A SUIT!
Later that month, Wong took a medical leave of absence.
When she returned two months later, Zarbo broke the bad
news that she had been laid off. Shocked, Wong sued under
Title VII and state law.
Zarbo defended her layoff decision by arguing that it was
based on performance evaluation ratings. Since Wong had
the lowest overall score in the department, it was only
natural that she was chosen.
But the court rejected this argument, finding that such
a justification failed to take into consideration evidence
of Johnson’s retaliatory motive for issuing the poor evaluation.
Upshot: Wong collects $93,000 in compensatory damages and
can go to trial for punitive damages.
Action Tips
This employer found itself in hot water for making employment
decisions based solely on performance ratings. While doing
so is not illegal, it’s always wise to:
• Look at the employee’s entire evaluation, not just the
overall rating. If Zarbo had done so, she would have noticed
the positive comments that Johnson had made — and found
no evidence to support his contention that Wong’s performance
and teamwork skills had fallen off.
• Question large drops in an employee’s performance rating,
especially an employee who may be perceived as a troublemaker.
When employees file complaints with those who evaluate them,
there is always a chance that the supervisor’s objectivity
might become tainted.
• Consider all performance reviews equally when making
an employment decision. Zarbo admitted that she had not
examined the performance reviews of anyone else besides
Wong. She only skimmed them because their overall scores
were higher than Wong’s.
Rugby Tickets
Tennis Tickets
WWE Tickets
Experts Advice on Human Resource Management
