Does your company have a clear policy on who makes final decisions about employee discipline and terminations? If not, a recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, which covers California, highlights why you should.
In Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah County , Lea Lakeside-Scott was fired for violating the County’s computer and email use policies. She sued, claiming that her termination was in retaliation for previous complaints she had made against one of her supervisors.
Reversing a $650,000 jury award in favor of Lakeside-Scott, the Ninth Circuit ruled that even though the lower-level supervisor may have had motive to retaliate against her, the decision to terminate was made by a more senior—and neutral—final decision maker following an independent investigation. For this reason, both the employer and the lower-level supervisor were off the hook.
400+ pages of state-specific, easy-read reference materials at your fingertips—fully updated! Check out the Guide to Employment Law for California Employers and get up to speed on everything you need to know.
This case is a good reminder that while supervisors can be entrusted with day-to-day operational decisions, final decisions regarding “adverse employment actions”—including pay reductions, demotions, promotion denials and terminations—should always be made by a neutral higher-up after a careful review of all the facts.
We’ll have the full story on this case, and tips for implementing an effective decision-making system at your workplace, in a future issue of California Employer Advisor. Don’t miss it—start your free 7-day trial subscription to
CEA Online today.