Performance Management Systems

PerformanceManagement Systems

PerformanceManagement Systems

Bysimple argument one is entailed to their employment and pays based ontheir legal right. Also, the law is clear on the terms oftermination of employment of an employee by a company by a code thatensures balances and checks on both the employee and employer. Thelawsuit: McGroryv. Applied Signal Technology, Inc.,No. H036597 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2013) is a classical example ofthe performance management system suit. Employees are subject toperformance reviews where an employee`s performance is looked intoand evaluated according to the terms agreed upon during hiring of theemployee. The company has legal right to evaluate the performanceafter a certain period of time after which it is determined whetherone is performance active or proactive (Mark, 2013).

Inthe suit levelled against Applied Signal Technology Inc, one of theiremployee`s John McGrory who worked as a manager from 2005 to 2009 wasterminated and he consequently sued for wrongful termination andclaimed discrimination bias. He was in charge of his own departmentat the company and a number of the employees reported to him (Mark,2013). After evaluation in consultations with the Human Resourcedepartment, a Performance Improvement Plan was issued for Mr. McGrorydue to his poor work performance as well as a verbal warning on thesaid matter. During the investigation by the attorney, the employeerefused to corporate in the investigation by undermining the processand failure to answer questions with regard to his junior collegesending in the termination of the manager due to his performance aswell as his conduct.

Thelaw is quite clear on the constitutional disposition on the term ofperformance as depicted clearly in the UniformGuidelines for Employee Selection Procedures. Theseguidelines are quite clear on the basis of which employmentdecision, which is hiring, promotion, demotion, referral, andtransfer. It determines whether it is acceptable or on the groundson which it becomes malice or discriminatory. Further in terms ofemployment it also supports the merit of job analysis of the employin accordance with their performance. For such a process validationis a key component as capped in (Section 14A Q&ampA 58).Performance procedures are set to provide equality in the workingenvironment as well as provide a justification for promotion ordemotion or even termination. It advocates for individual hardworkaccording to the set goal and limits. Moreover, it provides a balanceand check system for both the employer and employee and preserves theconstitutional right.

Fundamentally,the law maintains the integrity of the principles of the provision ofthe constitution. Thus, in the lawsuit, California’s FairEmployment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), was sited as convincingargument that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis ofsex. To prevail in a discriminatory discharge case, an employer mustshow that one or more reasons for the adverse employment action were“unrelated to unlawful discrimination.” Further, the Californialaw looked into the federal case law under Title VII of the CivilRights Act of 1964. This act prohibits discrimination according tocolour, race, sex, religion or national origin. The failure of theMr. McGroy to cooperate and participate in the investigation did notqualify him to argue on the basis of discrimination.

Itis quite that the law is clear on the basis of employment andprovides an equal footing for both the employer and employee.Equality is not just a notion but a practical practise and has beenput for the principles and guidelines to make a healthy workingenvironment. It becomes ethical when one is terminated on the basisof their performance as that is fair for both parties.

Reference

MarkS. Askanas, (2013). CaliforniaCourt Nixes Wrongful Termination Claim by Manager Who Refused toCooperate in Employer`s Investigation.Retrieved From,http://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources-publication/california-court-nixes-wrongful-termination-claim-manager-who-refused-cooperate-employers-investigation