Some managers are like Michael Scott in “The Office,” allowing all sorts of shenanigans to slide without ever handing down any punishment.
Other bosses are quick-trigger disciplinarians in the mold of Miranda Priestly of “The Devil Wears Prada” or Monty Burns of “The Simpsons.”
So what happens when an office suddenly encounters a seismic shift from a softie to a tough-guy boss? Employees who previously received five-star reviews, or no feedback at all, may now face a barrage of criticism and verbal abuse. Some may end up fired.
On the legal side, do employees facing such whiplash discipline have any grounds for a lawsuit? Maybe.
If employees in such a situation can prove that the new, increased scrutiny is based on one of their protected personal characteristics (age, race, sex, religion, etc.), a discrimination case is possible. But if the whip comes down simply because that’s the new supervisor’s management style, you’re likely in the clear for winning, but maybe not avoiding, a lawsuit.
Consider this recent example: Deborah, who is white, worked for many years at a Philadelphia utility, racking up satisfactory performance reviews. But when a new supervisor (a black man) arrived on the scene, she began suffering critiques and disparaging comments about her performance. She was placed on two performance improvement plans and then ultimately fired.
Deborah sued, alleging sex discrimination and “ridicule/harassment/psychological harassment.” But she didn’t have any evidence other than different reviews from different supervisors.
That wasn’t enough. The court said Deborah “presented no evidence raising a reasonable inference that any of (the company’s) alleged conduct was motivated by her race, gender or engagement in protected activities.”
The court said that “the mere fact that she received different reviews for different time periods from different directors does not raise an inference of discrimination.” The case was dismissed.
The lesson: In this case, the employer did everything right. It allowed the new boss to evaluate Deborah more critically than the previous supervisor, but also gave the employee a chance to turn her performance around. The employer then tracked her performance on the improvement plan and didn’t make a final decision until the plan ended.