policy enforcement
 

So,
i was wondering if its legal for a company to have bosses who only enforce policy when they want to get rid of someone; at all other times policy is ignored.

Re: policy enforcement
 

Assuming the employee is in an at-will state, and isn't a member of a collective bargaining group (i.e. union) employers aren't under any obligation to enforce workplace rules in a way that is fair. However, if they are using poorly enforced rules as a pretext to fire someone for a reason that wouldn't be legal (i.e. because that person is a member of a protected class) then the employer could be open for problems. In addition of the employer is breaking a defined length employment contract, or attempts to block unemployment, then the employee could have a good argument in terms of getting benefits.

Re: policy enforcement
 

More info if possible please! Makes it easier to answer the question.

Re: policy enforcement
 

1.5 years ago, they kept track of punch in/punch out and made sure it matched the schedule as well as keeping track of mistakes employees made no matter how minor.
they did it for approximately 1 month, until 1 employee - the one they wanted to get rid of (white male), had enough of the constant strict style of management and asked for a transfer to a different department. Immediately afterwards the tracking stopped. Until now that is; there is a hispanic employee - who was there at the time last time, who is now suffering the same nit picking. She has been told that if she comes in late 3 times according to policy she will be fired.
For a period of 3.5 years before the 1.5 year 1 month long incident there was no tracking like this observed. It only occurs when they for whatever reason do not want an employee any longer.

Re: policy enforcement
 

With the given examples, it doesn't seem to be a matter of target any specific people group. Assuming your are located in Florida, the state of Florida is an at-will employment state, so if management wants to be rid of an employee, they are only bound by company policy, and of course civil rights/equality laws. But legally speaking, in the state of Florida, an employee doesn't need to give any reason for letting someone go.

Re: policy enforcement
 

Unfortunately as Firestorm said it depends on the labour laws governing your state. Timber might know more but my understanding is that at will employment basically means they can hire and fire as they choose, for whatever reason.

Re: policy enforcement
 

they can hire and fire as they choose, but can they ignore company policy except when they feel like using it?

Re: policy enforcement
 

if it can be proven that they are ignoring policy and targetted her unfairly she has a leg to stand on in court if she wishes to, but the company can pretty muchdo what it wants, when and how it wants. Welcome to the right to work "state" of mind!

Re: policy enforcement
 

*note: I ain't no lawyer. I don't even play one on TV. YMMV. DSMIHNMA.*

If this kind of selective enforcement can be documented and proven, then it puts the company in a bad position. If legal action is pursued, this behaviour effectively negates the policy and opens up the company for discrimination charges. What that means, I don't exactly know... lawyers in the appropriate state would have a much better idea.

All I can say is that a conversation with a friendly consumer affairs reporter from a local station may prove... enlightening. And leave the company with some hard questions to answer on air.

Re: policy enforcement
 

The root of the problem is that discrimination is extremely difficult to prove, especially in such an indirect manner. It's hard enough to prove that your boss said you were fired because you're the wrong religion, political party, sexual orientation, gender, or nationality. Typically because you aren't thinking ahead of time, "I'd better record this, I think they're going to fire me for a discriminatory reason." And far more often because most employers are smart enough not to express such a reason. Not that it can't be proven, but you'd need records of the events, corroboration by witnesses, etc. Discrimination isn't an easy case to make.