Arbitrary application of policy

[KBBK]

Jurisdiction

Connecticut

My company has a bonus pool that is earned based on performance, which is rated by an employee's direct manager. Each employee's bonus and merit pay increase is based on his/her rating. To keep it simple, let's say that there are three possible ratings: Needs Improvement (the employee needs to take specific steps to improve); Fully Acceptable ( the employee meets the high expectations of the job) and; Exceed Expectations (employee performs above the level of expectations and the performance level of others in the same job). The company expects a certain percentage of employees to fall within each category, and they allocate the bonus pool accordingly. For 2018, the percentage of employees in the Exceeds Expectations group was higher than expected. In order to make sure that the high performing individuals were compensated, the company arbitrarily chose individuals who were in the category of Fully Acceptable and dropped them to the Needs Improvement category, despite glowing managerial reviews. They did not do this across the board to all Fully Acceptable employees, just certain individuals. For the individuals arbitrarily selected for this downgrade, they will receive significantly less bonus money, as well as less of a pay increase. In addition, employees in the Needs Improvement category cannot be considered for promotion or lateral job change in the company. Since the selection of the individuals to be downgraded was arbitrary and seemingly capricious, do those individuals have a case against the company for selecting them for punishment without reason?

 

[Tax Counsel]

Since the selection of the individuals to be downgraded was arbitrary and seemingly capricious, do those individuals have a case against the company for selecting them for punishment without reason?

It may have appeared to you that the choices were arbitrary, but my guess is that there was some reason for the choices made, though the employer may not wish to share that with the employees. But in any event whatever method they used to make the selection is legal unless the reason for the selection was some protected characteristic of the employee. Under federal law it would be illegal if the reason was the employee's race, color, national origin, citizenship, religion, age (if the employee is age 40 or older), sex, disability, or genetic test information. Under Connecticut law it would be illegal of the reason was the employee's age, ancestry, color, learning disability, marital status, mental retardation, national origin, physical disability, mental disability, race, religious creed, sex, gender identity or expression and sexual orientation, and in some cases the criminal record of the employee. So the employer's choice was legal unless you have evidence that the employer based the decision on one of those protected characteristics.

 

[army judge]

Since the selection of the individuals to be downgraded was arbitrary and seemingly capricious, do those individuals have a case against the company for selecting them for punishment without reason?

Without any equivocation NO!!!

 

[adjusterjack]

Since the selection of the individuals to be downgraded was arbitrary and seemingly capricious, do those individuals have a case against the company for selecting them for punishment without reason?

No.

Been there.

 

[cbg]

What Tax said.

 

[KBBK]

It is quite possible in this case that the individuals affected by this action were all in a protected class. It is more than likely that those who benefited from the action were not in that same protected class. Thank you all for your responses.

 

[adjusterjack]

Exactly what "protected class" would that be?

 

[cbg]

It never ceases to amaze me how many posters don't think to mention crucial facts - until they are told they have no case without them.

 

[Tax Counsel]

It is quite possible in this case that the individuals affected by this action were all in a protected class. It is more than likely that those who benefited from the action were not in that same protected class. Thank you all for your responses.

In your first post, you related the facts as though you had personal knowledge of them being an employee there yourself. If that was the case, you would know if all the individuals affected where all in a different protected class than those who were not. So I find your statement above about it is "quite possible" and "more than likely" to be odd. Either you know who was affected or you don't. You earlier said that the decision was arbitrary. If that's true, then it was not a decision made based on any protected characteristics.

So if you know who all fell into each category — downgraded review and not downgraded — how about you tell us what protected category you think each group fell into that might indicate illegal discrimination, whether every single member of each group fell into that particular protected group (e.g. they were all the same race, same religion, or whatever) and what evidence you have that that characteristic was the reason for making the decision.

It undercuts your assertion of any illegal discrimination when you start out saying the choice was arbitrary. Had it truly been illegal discrimination and you had evidence of it I would have expected that you'd have mentioned that straight away.

So be up front with us about what is really going on to get a realistic answer instead of angling to try to get the answer you'd like to hear. The latter does you no good.

 

[army judge]

So be up front with us about what is really going on to get a realistic answer instead of angling to try to get the answer you'd like to hear.

Know this OP, whatever any strangers tell you means nothing to the person/persons/entity you believe that have harmed you.

If you THINK you have a serious legal problem, your first move should be to consult a licensed attorney in your area.