Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whatever you do, have a witness. And better yet, draw up paperwork saying that you are approaching her with some issues and trying to resolve it. Have her sign it. This will help you later if you do have to terminate her for something and you have a signed document attesting to the fact this might have been an issue and was trying to resolve it. Almost like a warning. While it seems all fine now but people can turn into a different animal when terminated and all sorts of crazy crap comes out. Protect yourself. If you don't want to do the paperwork, fine. But have a witness. Seriously.
When you follow up in writing, the employee only signs to acknowledge receipt of the letter NOT in agreement to the content. No witness is necessary unless the employee refuses to sign the acknowledgement, in which case a witness simply attests to the fact that the employee refused the letter.
The OP isn't planning on reprimanding or firing the employee for alcoholism but for negligence in performing the required duties of the job. In an at will state, an employee can be fired for any or no reason. And no, alcoholics are not a protected class, but in this case it's not relevant.
To protect himself isn't a bad thing to do and if he doesn't want to pay on an UI claim, this is a way of ensuring that she was rightfully fired. If it's all comes down to words only, she will most likely win and possibly cause trouble for him. Why not take an extra step to protect himself? The letter will merely inform someone that the employee was approached on an issue relating to job performance. Most terminated employees will claim they were never approached. This letter will ensure of that.
^^^ For the reasons stated in my post subsequent to the one you quoted. The first post was directed towards Patanjali, the second to you.
Aah I see it now. But my post still remains the same. The letter will help protect the OP and acknowledge in writing that the employee was alerted to an issue with her job performance. Especially if she refuses to sign but the witness does sign.
Aah I see it now. But my post still remains the same. The letter will help protect the OP and acknowledge in writing that the employee was alerted to an issue with her job performance. Especially if she refuses to sign but the witness does sign.
I didn't dispute following up in writing. In my first post I said, "Once you've told her, confirm nicely in writing ..." Bringing in a witness from the get-go sets an antagonistic stance and in my opinion (and I've done this many times) only needs to be done when the employee refuses to sign an acknowledgement of receipt.
You also need to be sure that the employee understands (and many don't until you make it clear) that she's not admitting to guilt and not agreeing to what's contained in the letter, simply acknowledging receipt of it.
The OP isn't planning on reprimanding or firing the employee for alcoholism but for negligence in performing the required duties of the job.
Hiya STT... Since he was going to approach her about possible drinking & spoke of his intolerance for it on the job, I assumed drinking on the job was the reason he wished to use for dismissal.
Quote:
In an at will state, an employee can be fired for any or no reason.
Correct. But, unless you already know, he didn't say which state.
Quote:
And no, alcoholics are not a protected class, but in this case it's not relevant
Perhaps not. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd swear I worked at a company which couldn't fire someone because he went to rehab when confronted with drinking. Perhaps I'm wrong or don't recall all the details or maybe he was the owner's nephew, but I'm fairly certain that happened.
P.S. I just looked it up & alcoholics are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. They can be fired for non-performance of work, but if they admit to being an alcoholic & will seek treatment, for which the employer must make accommodations (usually time off), they cannot be fired & to do so is discrimination.
Here's one article from a lawyer's blog... true to form for the judicial system, some crazy cases sited:
Also, true to form, here's another 2006 article on AmericanBar.org saying it's not a protected disability but an impairment, but there are a lot of 'buts':
For a small company owner, I'd still stand by my suggestions of contacting the Labor Board, free legal aide for advice or a local lawyer to handle the case for a couple hundred dollars. Quite a shame to lose one's shirt for a troubled employee, who may retaliate in some way, if dismissed.
Her moodiness & slow days could be from having a hangover.
My husband has a small HVAC company and we had this situation.
Problem is, what happens if this employee gets hurt on the job? I know workers compensation requires a drug & alcohol test, but what if she waits "til the end of the day" to report it, knowing the alcohol would be out of her system by then?
We are in an At Will state so we "laid him off" for lack of work. Simple and direct.
This crazy guy showed up for work one night staggering down the hall. One of my coworkers saw it and called the supervisor while I got him some place out of sight to sit down. He wasn't fired but he was taken to the hospital. He said that he had too much NyQuil and was just tired. He was told to report to day shift to work so that they could keep an eye on him. He never showed up again. Another supervisor was fired for being intoxicated on the job but it took quite awhile. She was in and out of rehab but just couldn't maintain sobriety. I think you have to offer help first because it's considered a disease. It's better if they quit on their own and finding a way to make them want to quit without being sued is tricky.
I think this is a slippery slope here. Do the long term employee and the new person otherwise get along well? The person could also be mistaken about what he saw. You have some suspicions, but you seem to be fitting the behavior to a specific narrative, and not looking objectively for the facts.
An employer has no obligation to accommodate alcohol consumption.
The immediate issue is job performance and frankly, given all the potential issues, the smart move is just to say 'Goodbye'. The employer has no obligation to provide a reason for discharge. Yes, it might increase your unemployment insurance but that is chump change when you consider the costs of poor performance.
Personally I would time the discharge so that it is early in the week, early in the day - and change the locks and passwords immediately. In that way the former employee can start a job hunt, file for unemployment, and the office won't be vacant (potential bad acts).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
