Targeted terminations involving one specific employee are sometimes wrongful. Companies may decide to fire a worker who reports workplace safety violations or complains about sexual harassment from a supervisor.
Even though the worker has clear protections under the law, the company may find an excuse to end their employment. Workers fired shortly after using their basic employment rights may recognize that they experienced wrongful termination.
However, things can be less clear in scenarios involving large-scale staff reductions. If a company gets rid of many workers at once, those included in the layoff may simply view the outcome as bad luck. Still, inclusion in a layoff can sometimes constitute wrongful termination, especially if one of the two scenarios below applies.
A worker recently engaged in protected activity
The timing of a layoff can be as suspicious as the timing of a targeted termination. If a worker finds themselves included in the layoff just a little while after they report misconduct or ask for disability accommodations, they may reasonably suspect that their inclusion had everything to do with their recent protected activities.
Attempting to unionize, refusing to do something illegal at work or asking for unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) are all examples of behavior that might occur immediately before a termination. Especially if other workers included in the layoff have a history of engaging in similar protected activities, there may be reason to suspect that the company considered inappropriate factors when deciding who to retain.
A specific group has disproportionate representation
Companies cannot consider protected characteristics any more than they can consider protected activities when making employment choices. When company practices seemingly target members of a certain group, workers may have reason to question why they lost their jobs.
A worker’s age if they are over 40, their religion and their sex have protection under federal statutes. So do disability status, race and other characteristics outside of a person’s control. If a review of who the company laid off indicates that almost no one from one religion lost their job or most employees over 40 are in the pool of laid-off employees, there may be reason to believe that the layoff involves discriminatory decisions.
Layoffs may constitute wrongful terminations in cases involving protected characteristics or protected workplace activities. Holding employers accountable for considering inappropriate factors when choosing who to include in a layoff can potentially compensate workers harmed by illegal business practices.