[staticautomatic]

As someone who works on lawsuits for a living I join in your question. People make a lot of assumptions about employment lawsuits that I, as something of an insider, don't see IRL. I can at least say that this particular issue has never come up in any employment suit I've ever worked on. It may well be true that employers do certain things because they're afraid of being sued, but I'm not convinced that those fears are well-founded because the things they do to protect themselves ultimately don't seem to do much good when the case goes to trial. For example, people often say that employers put employees on PIPs as a precursor to firing them because they think it will make it harder for the employee to file a lawsuit when he or she is subsequently fired. Does that dissuade some wrongfully terminated people from talking to a lawyer? Probably. But on the other hand, in pretty much every employment case I've seen go to trial involving someone who was fired from a large company, that person was on a PIP. At the very least, the protective effects of these measures seem exaggerated.

[paulsutter]

The concern is not about wrongful termination lawsuits, but the myriad other lawsuits that a business could be subject to. Examples might include sexual harassment cases involving employees that were sex offenders, negligence in personal injury cases, customers or vendors accusing the company of violating contracts, etc.

[ergothus]

> People make a lot of assumptions about employment lawsuits that I, as something of an insider, don't see IRL

Yet US based HR decisions aren't based on informed awareness, but instead fear. Consider what people "know" about the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit, and what kind of training or legal advice most hr depts get (again, in the US. My understanding is that done other countries actually have standards for hr training)