[danielrpa]

Everything you said is correct. And just to be clear, in the US it is technically very straightforward in most states and you can fire people for any (non-protected) reason or for no reason whatsoever without any notice. However, there is always a risk that people will sue the employer by claiming that they were fired for reasons other than underperformance (gender, race, religion etc).

Employers in the US don't care about giving people the opportunity to improve, it's more about documenting the underperformance so there is an airtight case against the employee - nobody can claim a protected reason if the underperformance is very well documented.

All of this said, and this applies to smaller companies more than bigger companies due to the risks involved, if the employer is very confident the employee won't be able to argue that they were fired due to a protected reason, in most states they can just fire them in the middle of the day with no justification: "I don't like you, out of here".

[indymike]

> Employers in the US don't care about giving people the opportunity to improve, it's more about documenting the underperformance so there is an airtight case against the employee - nobody can claim a protected reason if the underperformance is very well documented.

Actually, these efforts often don't help much. As a rule, if you find yourself doing elaborate cover-your-ass excessive, you probably are doing something very systematically wrong. I've seen plenty of situations where the well-meaning managers documented everything, did the whole document poor performance, and a single deposition of a manager made it clear that the entire process used to document and remedy under-performance was simply collusion to fire someone for a protected reason... even though in reality, it was not. It goes kind of like this:

"So after four years of not a single entry in ___'s file, suddenly a poor review and a complicated PIP?" "____ just wasn't fitting in on the team."

"Hmm. _____ is the only _____ on the team, despite _____'s race/religion being ___% of the population. All hires made after you became manager were (insert manager's race/religion/sex). No other employees on your team are on PIPs. So, why is it that ___ wasn't fitting in?"

"I can haz consult with lawyer now?" (followed by settlement for 2x manager's salary)

[selimthegrim]

Wait was it or wasn’t it? Presumably it was- I guess it’s down to what would the judge think?

[indymike]

> Wait was it or wasn’t it?

Doesn't really matter. The problem is the choice for the employer is really:

A risk of paying 3 x whatever (sometimes crazy) number the employee is asking for

versus

Certainty of paying 1 x whatever we settle out of court for

Risk aversion kicks in, and so the company settles.

[chiefalchemist]

That documenting is self-fulfilling. It creates a bias. That is, the manager is biased towards fleshing that out, not signs of hope and change. The manager is also biased to covering their own arse, not giving the employee a fair shake.

Yes, there are cases where the employee needs to go. But there are others where that's not exactly true.

All that said, it's a relationship. Life is too short for unhealthy and unproductive relationships. When I find nyself in such situations I update my CV and start looking to move on. Somethings are what they are and not worth the fight.