Mark & Galusha, LLC, Employment Attorneys, Peapack/Gladstone and Rocky Hill, New Jersey.
Many employers have created Employment Manuals and implemented procedures in order to protect themselves from being sued if the employment arrangement takes a turn for the worse. The company's rules and guidelines have usually been created with the assistance of an attorney capable of providing employers with the in's and out's of the legal world. As a result, most of the policies are completely legal and not considered by the Courts as unfair regulations to ask of an employee.
One such policy is the Performance Improvement Plan, or PIP, which has been designed in order to allow an organization to correct the performance of an employee and assist them in maintaining their position. When properly implemented, a PIP can be beneficial to all involved. An employer need not terminate an employee and go through the costs of finding and training a replacement, and the employee gets to keep their position and does not need to forgo income.
In the appellate matter of Raymond C. Reynolds v. Department of the Army, et al., Civil Action No. 10-3600, the Appellate Division rendered a decision regarding a Performance Improvement Plan instituted within the Federal Government which allowed a supervisor to place an individual on probation. Mr. Reynolds was placed on a 90-day probationary period wherein he was asked to improve his performance following a review wherein he failed to meet two of seven objectives. Following this decision, Mr. Reynolds applied for early retirement benefits and eventually opted take advantage of the offer. While Plaintiff was weighing his decision on whether or not to leave or continue with the Department, he claims that a significant part of that decision came from the extension of the PIP without an extension of his option. As such, he felt that retiring early was forced upon him.
Mr. Reynolds filed a Complaint, alleging age discrimination. Mr. Reynolds had met the requirements in order to properly address his grievances within a Court of Law. He was 51 at the time of retirement and under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) which protects individuals over the age of 40. Mr. Reynolds was also the subject of a decision which could negatively impact his employment. Nevertheless, the Court found that the affidavits produced in evidence of age discrimination were lacking as they often made legal conclusions and contained fanciful remarks. As such, the court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Mr. Reynolds appealed this decision, claiming that the trial court had made its determination in error. After reviewing the evidence, the Appellate Division found that the court had properly dismissed Plaintiff's claims. The decision was made that despite having a prima facie case, Mr. Reynolds still had not produced sufficient evidence in order to carry the burden of proof.
If not followed correctly, the implementation of Performance Improvement Plans still have the potential to backfire on employers. While PIP is not considered an adverse employment action in this case, if an employer uses same in order to demote, terminate or harass an individual, they may have valid claims. If you feel that your company has misused the guidelines instituted within your Employment Manual, please do not hesitate to contact the law firm of Mark & Galusha, LLC. We are experienced attorneys who specialize in employment matters throughout Peapack/Gladstone, Rocky Hill and Somerset County. We can be reached at (908) 626-1001 or 973-440-2311, or simply tell us your story by clicking the "contact us" page.
