Terminations are probably the hardest things HR professionals have to handle—and probably the most legally dangerous. One wrong word can trigger a lawsuit. You need to keep calm and communicate your message without escalating the tension. Here’s a 10-step process to follow:

1. Be prepared

Review the facts ahead of time to make sure the termination decision was sound. Document legitimate business reasons supporting the action. Ensure the termination won’t breach contractual obligations, and that people closest to the situation will confirm the underlying facts.

Prepare a meeting script so that when emotions become raw, you can stay on message and cover all the issues that need to be addressed.

2. Determine the right place

Don’t add to the employee’s embarrassment by meeting where others might see or hear what’s going on. Select a location where there will be no interruptions. If the employee becomes argumentative, you may need to get up and leave once you’ve communicated the decision. For that reason, don’t use your own office.

3. Have a witness

If another observer is present, the employee will have less opportunity to later make false accusations about events that occurred during the meeting. The witness should be a manager—one who is not emotionally invested in the termination.

4. Don’t debate the decision

You don’t need the employee’s agreement that the termination is justified. Just communicate the decision. Refuse to engage in any argument over its merits. If the termination is because of performance reasons or misconduct, the employee should already be aware of the reasons behind the decision. You gain nothing by trying to convince the employee that he or she deserves to be fired. Such a discussion will only ratchet up the tension.

If the person is being fired for performance, don’t offer compliments on aspects of his or her work. Doing so may make you feel better, but it will only infuriate the worker because it will appear that he or she is being fired for no reason.

5. Focus on transition issues

If the employee has company property, make arrangements now for its immediate return. If the employee has a noncompete or other continuing obligations, inform him or her of your expectations. Make arrangements for removal of the employee’s personal belongings.

6. Handle final pay

In some states, when an employee is involuntarily terminated, the employer must pay all earned and unpaid wages within 24 hours after the employee’s demand. To avoid any potential dispute over when a demand was made, most employers simply have the final paycheck available at the termination meeting.

7. Manage requests for personnel records

Some state laws permit terminated employees to request copies of their personnel records. Know the law in your state. Review these types of requests with your attorney.

8. Consider severance

When severance benefits add up to a significant amount, they should be conditioned upon an agreement releasing the company from any and all legal claims. Employers must meet various legal requirements for such releases to be enforceable. Work with your attorney to make certain your release agreements are enforceable.

9. Document the discussion

After the meeting, you and the witness should document what happened. If you did a good job of preparing a script and sticking to it, you should be well on your way to completing your documentation even before the meeting begins.

10. Maintain confidentiality

Resist the urge to use this event as a lesson to other employees—or to put to rest rumors about why the employee left the company. With the exception of those who have a legitimate need to know more, employees and customers should simply be told that the person no longer works for the company.

Final note: Treating departing employees with dignity and respect will go a long way toward minimizing the inevitable tension that exists when communicating the termination decision. Making a plan and sticking to it are the keys. By doing so, you will avoid the traps that often cause termination meetings to be more stressful and combative than they need be.

A startling 46% of employees say they have witnessed workplace harassment in the past five years, according to the new State of Workplace Harassment Report from Traliant, a compliance training provider. Its survey of more than 2,000 U.S. workers reveals critical gaps in how organizations prevent harassment and respond to it—gaps that Traliant says could cost employers both money and talent. 

Generational differences emerge

The youngest employees—members of Generation Z—reported the highest rates of witnessing workplace harassment at 52%, compared to just 33% for baby boomers. Such a significant gap suggests younger workers have different perspectives on what constitutes harassment. Additionally, Gen Z identified harassment from external parties (clients, customers, patients) at higher rates than other generations, 21% compared to a generational average of 14%. 

Reporting barriers persist

While most harassment incidents are reported, concerning trends emerged around reporting channels and outcomes:

• Only 51% of employees said they would report harassment if they couldn’t do so anonymously.
• 67% cited retaliation concerns as a key barrier to reporting.
• Women reported higher dissatisfaction with harassment-report outcomes (32%) compared to men (20%).
• 28% of all employees were either “not very satisfied” or “not satisfied at all” with their employer’s response to reports of harassment.
  

Training and policy gaps

The survey identified several areas where organizations are falling short:

• 11% of workers reported receiving no harassment-prevention training at all.
• 17% of employees said their organizations have outdated harassment policies.

Remote work impact

An interesting finding emerged around work arrangements: 51% of remote employees reported feeling “extremely protected” from harassment, compared to just 38% of fully in-person workers. This suggests that employers with traditional office environments may need to institute additional anti-harassment safeguards and protocols.

Effect on workplace belonging

The impact of harassment extends beyond immediate incidents. Among employees who said they had experienced harassment:

• Only 55% now feel “extremely” or “very” protected at work.
• 28% report a lower sense of workplace belonging over the past five years.

The numbers are significantly better for those who haven’t experienced harassment, with 82% saying they feel protected.

Harassment-prevention strategies

The report outlines several key steps organizations can take to build safer workplaces:

1. Improve awareness. Traliant recommends providing ongoing training about physical, verbal and visual forms of harassment. Use scenario-based training to help employees understand “gray areas.” Ensure employees and supervisors alike know how to recognize subtle forms of harassing conduct.

2. Strengthen reporting mechanisms. Implement multiple, easily accessible harassment-reporting channels, including ways for employees and managers to anonymously file reports. Clearly communicate reporting procedures to all employees.

3. Address industry-specific needs. Harassment abounds in some work environments more than others, especially those that are male-dominated or those in which employees work far away from home-office oversight. Employers should customize anti-harassment policies and training to reflect the unique dynamics of their workplaces. Consider the specific challenges that may exist within your industry. Adapt anti-harassment training so it reflects the realities your workforce faces.

4. Prevent retaliation. Implement confidential harassment-reporting systems. Create safeguards to protect employees who report incidents. Establish and publicize clear anti-retaliation policies.

Creating lasting change requires more than just implementing policies and training programs. Employers must address the fundamental fears that prevent employees from reporting harassment while ensuring swift, effective responses when incidents occur.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 15 unanimously ruled that employers can win lawsuits claiming they misclassified an employee as exempt if a preponderance of the evidence supports their case. The court rejected a much tougher standard—clear and convincing evidence—that would have made it easier for employees to win misclassification lawsuits.

The High Court’s decision in E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera puts to rest fears of a sharp increase in Fair Labor Standards Act misclassification cases claiming employers didn’t take enough care when making decisions about employees’ exempt or nonexempt status. 

The case: A group of employees who worked for EMD Sales, a food products distributor, filed a lawsuit alleging they were misclassified as outside salespersons and therefore should have received overtime pay when they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.

When employees challenge their exempt classification, employers have the burden of proving they classified the employees correctly. The must convince a judge or jury that they properly followed the specific classification tests laid out by Department of Labor rules.

But how heavy is that burden? Federal appeals courts have disagreed. In the E.M.D. Sales case, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said the company had to prove they were right by clear and convincing evidence. Think of that as a big tip of the burden-of-proof scales—in this case, in favor of the employees. Every other federal court of appeals that has addressed the issue has held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies, a much slighter tip of the scales.

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard was appropriate in FLSA classification cases. It sent the case back to a lower court for a judge to determine if the employer had proven it classified the employees correctly, under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. (E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera, U.S. Supreme Court, 2025) 

Advice: Always be prepared to show how you arrived at an exempt/nonexempt decision and that you got the classification right. Do this by being able to describe your employees’ exact job duties. Then match those duties to each of the FLSA’s duties tests: administrative, executive, professional, highly compensated employee or, as in this case, outside salesperson. Be prepared to “show your work.” If you follow these steps, you will likely meet the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

When interviewing more than one candidate to fill a job, the easiest way to prevent failure-to-hire lawsuits is to ask the same questions of every candidate. That’s especially important when there are several rounds of interviews or when a committee conducts the interviews.

Follow these interviewing rules:

• Require hiring managers to submit interview questions in advance for your review. Look for questions that trigger discrimination claims, like lightning-rod queries about age, child-care plans, religion and disabilities.
• Tell interviewers to stick with the approved questions. Tell each interviewer to take notes on the answers.
• Have every interviewer sign and date their notes and forward them to HR for retention in case of a lawsuit.
  

Recent case: Donna sued the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, claiming race discrimination was the reason she wasn’t hired. She said an interview committee used subjective criteria to reject her.

The Port Authority explained that the committee asked all applicants the same questions, which were all job-related and designed to address applicants’ technical knowledge, general competency and communication skills. Plus, it said no interviewers “injected their own additional subjective criteria into the evaluation process.”

The court sided with the employer and dismissed Donna’s lawsuit. It concluded that no interviewers deviated from an approved-in-advance list of questions. Each noted their reactions to candidate answers, ranking applicants by assessing how they responded. (Glaesener v. Port Authority, 3rd Cir., 2024)

There are lots of legitimate reasons employers might need to terminate employees. A new hire might not be performing up to expectations. Perhaps a supervisor doesn’t believe a subordinate is contributing enough to team efforts. Maybe senior leaders want to save money by eliminating jobs.

In all cases, HR must review the reason for the termination and ensure the decision will be defensible in court should the former employee decide to file a lawsuit.

It is almost always best to focus on objective reasons rather than resorting to subjective assessments. Ensure that all terminations are based on solid business reasons. And be sure to carefully document why you decided to terminate, even if you don’t share the rationale with the employee. 

Recent case: The EEOC has settled a case involving the termination of the only Black project manager working for Sureste Development. At first, the real estate company said the manager performed well. However, he was terminated less than a year after he began working at Sureste. The stated reason was that he was “lazy” and not a good fit for the company’s “culture.”

He filed a complaint with the EEOC claiming he had been assigned more work than the company’s other project managers who were not Black. The EEOC sued on his behalf.

Then Sureste changed its story, explaining it had terminated the man because it had eliminated his position. But during discovery, it turned out that Sureste’s records showed it had promoted a significantly less-qualified white employee to the same position the Black project manager held.

Instead of taking its chances in court, Sureste agreed to settle the case. The fired project manager will receive $70,000, and the company must train all its supervisors, managers and employees on discrimination. 

Note: Shifting reasons for a termination hardly ever works out for employers. The more your explanation “evolves,” the less credible your company looks. 

Advice: HR should monitor what happens after a worker is discharged. If someone was fired because his or her position was eliminated, make sure no one is hired to fill that position soon after.

Want more content like this? HR Employment Law Advisor members can log on to the website each morning and receive multiple new pieces of content, such as stories like this one. Click here to learn more about a membership and how the service can help ease some of your employment law burden. 

That has left states to pick up the slack, subjecting employers to a dizzying array of new labor and employment laws. Here is a sampling of new laws scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2025, or soon after. 

Background checks  

• Arizona’s home health-care agency law has been amended to require employers hiring home health-care workers to conduct background checks. Before hiring, employers must contact all previous employers to ask about the applicant’s fitness to work with patients and clients. Each applicant must also be checked against the adult protective services registry.
• Oregon also passed a law requiring background checks for workers providing direct care to clients and patients.
• New Hampshire prohibits registered sex offenders from working at businesses that provide services to minors or jobs that require supervision of minors.

Child labor

Several states have tightened their child-labor laws. Others loosened them.

• California employers that perform voluntary child-labor audits to confirm they don’t violate child-labor laws must post the audit on their websites.
• Colorado increased the penalties for violating child-labor rules.
• Illinois completely revamped its child-labor laws to provide greater protection.
• Indiana loosened its laws, expanding work hours and completely removing hour and time restrictions for minors aged 16 and older.

CROWN Act

• California has amended its discrimination law to include discrimination based on hair texture and protected hairstyles.

Domestic violence leave

• California employees can take leave when an employee or family member is a victim of an act of violence. Employers must also provide reasonable accommodations to prevent further violence, effectively making the workplace a safe zone. California also made it easier for employers to obtain a restraining order on behalf of employees who have been harassed.

Paid sick leave

• Connecticut expanded paid sick leave to all employers with 25 or more workers and prohibits employers from requiring employees to document the need for that leave.
• New York requires employers to provide up to 20 hours of paid leave for pregnancy needs.

Pay transparency

Several states require starting salaries to be posted with job ads.

• Illinois requires employers with 15 or more workers to post the pay scale and all benefits in all ads.
• Minnesota employers with 30 or more workers must include a full salary range in ads, along with a summary of benefits.

Workplace safety

• California requires Cal/OSHA, the state’s occupational safety and health agency, to pass regulations requiring employers to include Narcan in first-aid kits to reverse narcotic overdoses. Another California law requires Cal/OSHA to pass regulations to require hospitals to screen for weapons.

Final note: This list does not cover every new law. Check with your state department of labor for the latest minimum-wage increases and any other new laws or regulations effective in 2025.

Want more content like this? HR Employment Law Advisor members can log on to the website each morning and receive multiple new pieces of content, such as stories like this one. Click here to learn more about a membership and how the service can help ease some of your employment law burden.