[pyuser583]

That’s really not an excuse. Am good manager knows to give a layoff speech without creating legal liability.

The liability comes in how they select who they lay off and the actions taken prior to lay off.

This is simply laziness.

[tempnow987]

This is so wrong it's not funny. If you are going to be laying off folks PLEASE check with someone on HR / legal side before taking the above advice.

A ton of liability has been created historically based on what is said at the time of a termination.

I personally don't like managers who say how hard the layoff is for them, the employee does NOT care. Just get to the point "I have some bad news to share...."

If you are smaller, your emp practices insurance carrier would LOVE if you called them prior to laying someone or a few folks off. Almost all offer free support as this is THE area that generates a huge amount of claims.

[DiggyJohnson]

This comment misses the mark. The fact that many of these conversations do generate liability is not the point, the point is that a good manager can - with their own agency - avoid those missteps in their own discussions.

[tempnow987]

Let me go point by point.

"A good manager knows to give a layoff speech without creating legal liability."

No, this is not true. Many good managers, even nice managers can mess this up. It is not always obvious. Being a good manager is different than (sometimes somewhat arbitrary) things that generate legal liability.

"The liability comes in how they select who they lay off and the actions taken prior to lay off."

Again, this is totally false. MUCH legal liability is created AT THE POINT OF LAYOFF/TERMINATION. I happen to see this over and over. It's weird / scary to hear folks here deny this so brazenly. If you deal with wrongful termination cases a common first source of dispute will center around what was said / claimed at termination both too the employee or employees affected AND to others about the termination. Sure, you can get into statistics around groups and how selected etc, but practically if you can show the lies / inconsistencies in that good managers explanation for layoff provided right there (and there WILL be inconsistencies if they go on for a long time trying to justify / avoid hurt feelings etc) you can "skip to the good part $$$". I'll note that some of the biggest issues comes from nice to very nice managers, they often are sloppier with employee files, sloppier with boundaries and more. They are often liked - so the cases can be a bit of a bummer.

My point stands, some companies have a relatively scripted layoff for these larger layoffs that has gone through legal and other reviews. They don't always allow for a lot of back and forth discussion. Not all of course.

[pyuser583]

“A good manager” knows when to contact legal and insurance to get help.

My point isn’t that managers don’t need assistance. My point is that managers don’t need to send a prerecorded message or read directly from a script.

Having consulted with legal, etc. a good manager can inform an employee of a layoff in a personal way.

Part of effectively laying off employee is minimizing hurt feelings. Some pain is inevitable, but adding to is asking for trouble (and bad PR).

Once someone is let go, they are often asked to give a “departure interview” - for legal reasons it’s best if they participate. If they can check box saying “I have no complaints about the company,” it will help avoid lawsuits.

This involves coordinating with legal, HR, etc.

But it also means an impersonal layoff is a bad idea.

Being afraid of lawsuits is a terrible reason let employees go in an insulting manner.

Edit: individual managers rarely (if ever) do layoffs on their own. it’s always a cross-company effort.