You’re Fired!
By
MBA Student
11/15/2006
What can be the most challenging part of any workers job? Anyone who has, and
just about everyone has, crossed paths with another employee who creates more problems
than actually solves problems. Problem employees distract others from their jobs,
increase workplace tension, and can greatly reduce a company’s performance. Problem
employees come in a variety of types. They might lack the proper skills for the job, work
to slow, sloppy at their craft, difficult to manage, or always late for work.
How a company’s management deals with problem employees is critical to its
success. Appropriate steps for discipline, job placement, and terminations are all vital to
the companies output it receives from its employees.
As Dick Grote the President of Grote Consulting put it “Managers
would rather have a tooth pulled than have a performance conversation
with a subordinate. Dealing with poor performers is probably the most
difficult job that anybody with supervisory responsibility has. The
hardest thing to do is to look a person in the eye and tell them they’re
not good enough. God, that’s tough.”1
There are many ways that a company can deal with its problem employees.
Dependent on the contract between the employee and employer, there are options of
discipline until the problem employee’s behavior is corrected. Another option is
counseling or training that gives the employee an opportunity to improve their abilities.
Under many circumstances, all that is needed is a different job in the company for the
employee to correct their problems. Then there is the unfortunate circumstance of laying
the employee off if no improvement is made or if no value can be found from having the
employee continue to work for the company.
Having gone though both sides of spectrum of supervising problem employees
and the eventual termination of a few to receiving time off myself for not performing a
job to company standards, I was curious to see how other companies handled their
problem employees. The following case looks at how Nissan North America, Inc.
terminated Kathy Cantrell for her history of gross misconduct.
Case Background
On March 15th of 1992, Kathy Cantrell began her employment with Nissan North
America, Inc working in their production process. During her first year of employment at
Nissan, no performance issues arose.
In early 1993 Cantrell was diagnosed with depression and was found subject to
panic attacks for unstated reasons. 2 On May 15th of that year, Cantrell was written up for
unwelcome physical contact towards a fellow employee. No further discipline was
issued.
In 1994, Cantrell was having more psychological problems and was hospitalized
for depression for two weeks. She returned to work upon being released from the
hospital.
In February of 1995 coworkers of Cantrell reported to management that she was
intimidating other workers and also displayed unwanted physical contact. No discipline
was issued. In March, Cantrell spoke with a manager of Nissan and told him “I’m so
mad I could kill someone. I could understand how someone could come into a place like
this and kill people. I’m going to beat the **** out of her after her baby is born.” 2
Nissan placed her on medical leave until it was determined that she was no longer a threat
to the employees of Nissan North America. In June, Nissan allowed Cantrell to return to
work after she received counseling from the plant’s managers on her work behavior. A
month later Cantrell was again displaying inappropriate work behavior by making sexual
comments to her area manager and calling him at home. No discipline was issued at this
time.
During the month of October of 1996, more complaints surfaced concerning
Cantrell’s work behavior and the intimidation of coworkers continued. At this time,
management decided that it would be best to give Cantrell a different position where she
would not be so prone to continue her inappropriate work behavior. Just a month later,
two complaints were issued to Nissan’s management stating that Cantrell had harassed
another employee. No disciplinary actions were taken.
In 1998 Cantrell’s personal psychologist and Nissan’s doctor agreed it would be
best to limit Cantrell from working with certain individuals whom she has had previous
behavioral problems with. Nissan was able to accommodate the doctors’ request by
giving Cantrell another job transfer.
Cantrell suffered a non-work related injury in June of 1999 and was on leave of
absence until the end of the year. Upon returning from her knee injury, Cantrell was
given physical restrictions which made it more difficult for Nissan to suit her needs for a
job which did not involve interaction with employees with which she had previous
behavioral problems with.
During October of 2001, Cantrell’s doctor imposed new physical restrictions
which disabled her to work the current job she was performing. Nissan was again
challenged to find a position which would fit her needs. Under the new restrictions,
Nissan had only one job that fit Cantrell’s abilities. The only problem with this new
position was the potential interaction with employees that Cantrell was prohibited to
work with. Because of this, Cantrell was put on leave until a position became available
for her to work in.
February of 2002, Cantrell’s doctor lifted the additional restrictions preventing
here from doing her job. Cantrell returned to work for two months when it was her
rotation to go to the sealer job. The sealer job was an unpleasant job which many
employees dreaded. In the past, Cantrell could not work the sealer job because she was
prohibited from working with employees who worked in that area. This did not sit well
with the other members of the workforce. They believed that she was just trying to get
out of having to do dirty work and that she was getting special treatment. Due to the
pressures from work, Cantrell was able to get approval from her doctor to allow her to
work the sealer job. In June she was rotated to the sealer job. On the first shift of the
sealer job, Cantrell was escorted to the jobsite by her supervisor who stayed with her until
she felt comfortable in her new surroundings. After the supervisor left Cantrell to work
on her own, she suffered a panic attack. At that point Nissan removed her from the sealer
position and did not allow her to work there regardless of the fact the rest of the work
force felt it was unfair and just a façade.
When Cantrell returned to the part of the rotation that she could handle
psychologically, she had another altercation with an employee involving harassment and
intimidation. This again went unpunished. Then again in July, Cantrell got into trouble
with another employee while exhibiting the same previous behavior problems. Nissan
finally took action and at the end of July and moved her to another work group because
of the altercation and because of her disciplinary problems. Cantrell received a written
reminder that if her inappropriate behavior happened again, she would be subject to
termination. Nissan discussed terminating Cantrell, but determined it would be best to
give her one more chance.
Instead of reporting to her new position, Cantrell decided it would be best for
herself to take a leave of absence. According to Cantrell, she was prohibited from
working with two of the employees who worked in her new area and had a panic attack
just thinking about the new job.
While on leave on September 2, Cantrell filed a complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.) claiming that Nissan discriminated
against her by failing to reasonably accommodate her disability in violation of the
American with Disability Act (ADA) of 1990. 2 At the end of October, the charge was
dropped and Cantrell returned to work at the position she previously couldn’t do because
of contact with workers she was unable to work with.
Shortly after she returned from work, Cantrell was asked if she would be
interested in participating in a new position where she would be responsible for
evaluating Nissan’s vehicles. Cantrell agreed to try the new job out on November 18th.
During the new job training, Cantrell was watching a video on how to evaluate the cars
when she had another panic attack she claims was brought about by employees she saw
on the video. Cantrell was sent home after evaluation by Nissan’s nurse.
At this point, Nissan was finally fed up with all the issues that Cantrell was
creating and discussed her termination once more. On December 6, upon her return from
her latest panic attack, Nissan informed Cantrell that she was being let go because of her
history of gross misconduct. 2 Cantrell attempted to appeal the termination through
Nissan’s peer review process, but was unable to reverse the decision.
On January 28 of 2003, Cantrell filed suit with United States District Court
claiming that Nissan discriminated against her by failing to reasonable accommodate her
disability in violation of the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 and that Nissan
terminated her employment in retaliation for her filing a charge of disability
discrimination with the E.E.O.C. 2
Case for Nissan
Retaining problem employees can be detrimental to a business. There are many
unwanted side effects created from leaving problem employees in the organization
including the drop off in company morale, reduction in production, and an increase in
stress on the whole work force.
As Bob Pritchett, author of Fire Someone Today puts it “When we
don’t fire employees who need to be fired, our inaction is malicious.
We are hurting our organization and wasting the employee’s time on a
job with no future. Our motivations are most likely selfish; at very
best, we are just being stupid.”3
Did Nissan have justification for firing Cantrell? What justification didn’t they have?
Looking at her career with Nissan there were many instances where Cantrell exhibited
behavior that warranted termination. Cantrell committed sexual harassment towards
coworkers and supervisors, was unable to continually perform labor skilled jobs, she
fostered the creation of hostile work environments, and not to mention she always tried to
get out of jobs which required more effort than other jobs.
The E.E.O.C. has defined sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances,
requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical types of behavior contact of a
sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when such conduct has the purpose or effect
of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.4 Cantrell had at least five
separate incidents of documented sexual harassment against coworkers. This doesn’t
include the numerous unreported acts of sexual harassment.
During Cantrell’s tenure with Nissan, she worked multiple jobs, some of which
were created openings so that she could work with out psychological complications or for
her physical restrictions. A majority of the position changes were a result of conflicts
with coworkers where either Cantrell exhibited sexual harassment towards others or
created escalated confrontations with coworkers. When Nissan conducted a survey
asking members of the department Cantrell as working in what would improve team
cohesiveness, eight out of the seventeen employees recommended that Nissan
management either correct Cantrell’s inappropriate behavior or move her out of the
department.2
As given by a work place violence discussion guide, “ Violence and the fear of
violence costs the business community and the taxpayer billions of dollars each year in
attorney’s fees, reduced productivity, insurance claims, absenteeism, and illness caused
by work related stress.”5 Cantrell’s continued display of inappropriate behavior was not
limited to just sexual harassment, it included the intention of physically harming the
people she worked with. Cantrell spoke with another employee about how she felt the
others she worked with and actually said “I’m so mad I could kill someone.” She later
went on to say that she intended to physically harm a specific coworker. Nissan had but
no other option than to remove this potential for disaster from their place of business.
Keeping Cantrell around was pointless. She continued to disrupt the work force
to a point where she was bringing down the other employees. By continuously getting
herself out of jobs and creating tension between other workers, she was hurting the moral
of the work force. If Nissan didn’t act and do something about Cantrell, all the
employees would have lost confidence in Nissan’s management to control the situation,
thus creating a lower work force moral.7
Case Against Nissan
Cantrell’s personal file is not overflowing with recognition letters, it mainly
consists of reprimands or warnings of inappropriate behavior, but there are faults that
Nissan North America, Inc. has allowed to build up over Cantrell’s ten year tenure. The
obvious problems with Nissan’s decision to terminate Cantrell were given in her
complaint to the E.E.O.C. Nissan wrongfully discriminated against her by failing to
accommodate her implications created by her diagnosis of depression. On top of that,
Nissan retaliated against Cantrell for making her claim to the E.E.O.C. by firing her for
the inability to work with other employees that both her personal doctor and Nissan’s
medical representative suggest she not be in contact with. Nissan is also at fault for
allowing numerous opportunities to properly discipline and terminate Cantrell slip by. If
Nissan would have taken proper steps to resolve the problems that Cantrell created in
their business, there may have never been a complaint to the E.E.O.C.
The ADA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities, a record of having such an impairment, or being
regarded as having such an impairment.4 Cantrell falls under the mental impairment
portion of the ADA by being diagnosed with depression and panic attacks by her personal
doctor in 1993. What the ADA of 1990 requires that Nissan do for employees that fall
under its protection is to properly provide them with reasonable accommodation to
perform their job. For depression, reasonable accommodation has been defined as to
require employers to allow their disabled employees time off for treatment and flexibility
in scheduling. Nissan did allow Cantrell leave of absence for her to straighten out her
psychological issues, they even allowed her to participate in studies for multiple months
at a time. What they did not do was allow Cantrell to modify her schedule so that she
would be able to work free from having to deal with the employees she was restricted
from working with. Many times Nissan made arrangements for Cantrell to move to new
positions where she would be away from the employees that she was restricted from
working with, but eventually as time went on, Cantrell was in contact with those
employees and suffered panic attacks because of it.
On December 6th of 2002, Cantrell was informed that she was being let go by
Nissan for gross misconduct just two months after her claim was sent to the EEOC. How
is it that for ten years during which Nissan had improperly managed to resolve the
behaviors of Cantrell, they can terminate her employment? Cantrell was retuning from
another recovery from a panic attack that was provoked by Nissan’s inability to meet her
disability needs when all of the sudden she is fending for her employment. Cantrell did
nothing wrong but agree to try a new position that Nissan believed would suit her better
but actually cause her psychological damage. It is absurd to think that what happened
during the training for her new position was gross misconduct, she suffered a panic
attack. There was no documentation of gross misconduct during her training.
The biggest and most disturbing fault that Nissan committed was not properly
dealing with Cantrell when her outrageous inappropriate behavior occurred. The
repeated instances of sexual harassment and work place violence were easily grounds for
termination. Instead they either chose not to discipline Cantrell at all or just move her to
another position where the problems would surface again. William Zepp sums this fault
up by saying “You should never retain a negative staff member, particularly after the
customary remedies have been applied.”6
Case Questions
1. Did Nissan have proper grounds for terminating Cantrell? Or was the termination
retaliation?
2. What constitutes reasonable accommodation for depression and panic attacks?
3. Did Cantrell receive reasonable accommodation?
4. Noting that Cantrell was diagnosed with depression, is she still considered part of
the protected ADA class even if she becomes cured from her depression?
5. Was it fair for Nissan to fire Cantrell after she made a claim to the E.E.O.C.?
6. Was it fair for Nissan to fire Cantrell after she failed to complete the training
video?
7. Why would Nissan not have chosen to fire Cantrell earlier in her career?
8. Was this the right decision?
9. If Cantrell truly is a problem employee, why is she granted favors that employees
in good standing are not?
10. What is society to do with a person like Cantrell that has medical problems and
struggles to provide a value in the workplace?
References
1 Levinson, Meridith. “How to Find, Fix, or Fire Your Poor Performers.” CIO
Magazine 1 Nov 2003. 15 Nov 2006 <http://www.cio.com/archive
/110103/poor.html>
2 Kathy Cantrell, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nissan North America Inc., DefendantAppellee. 1 Aug 2005. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 15
Nov 2006 http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0642n06.pdf#search='Cantrell %20v.%20Nissan%20North%20America'
3 McKinney, Michael. “Fire Someone Today” Online Posting 15 Nov 2006
http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadingblog/2006/05/
4 Gerhart, John, John Hollenbeck, Raymond Noe, and Patrick Wright, eds.
Fundamentals of Human Resource Management. New York:McGraw-Hill/Irwin
2006
5 Work Place Violence Discussion Guide. 15 Nov 2006 <http://www.
crimeprevent.com/acrobat/V9701_Discussion_guide.pdf#search='
violence %20in%20the%20work%20place'>
6 Zepp, William. “Dealing with Problem Employees.” Association
Management December 2001
7 Daniels, Aubrey C. “Replacing Bad Employees.” 17 Jul 2000. <http
://www.entrepreneur.com/humanresources/employeemanagementcolu
mnistdavidjavitch/article30328.html>
8 Gravel, Celine “How to Manage Problem Employees: An Appreciation of
Workplace Issues Can Help Diffuse a Volatile Situation.” CMA
Management September 2002
9 Schindler, Esther. “Would You Fire This Person?” 14 Aug 2006 <http
://business .itbusinessnet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=57270-0>
10 “Managing People – Problems Employees.” 15 Nov 2006 <http://www.
businesstown.com/people/employees.asp>
11 “Managing Problem Employees.” 15 Nov 2006 < http://www.Allbusiness.
com/human-resources/workforce-management-conflictresolution/1338-1.html>
12 “How to Motivate Your Problem People.” Harvard Business Review
January 2003
13 Bergeron, Jennifer. “Employer’s Decision to Fire Problem Employee after
Employee Filed E.E.O.C Complaint Suggested Employer Unlawfully
Retaliated Against Its Employee.” October 2005 employment law
update 15 Nov 2006 <http://www.ulmer.com/NR/rdonlyres/33C3186E
-70A2-4566-A3AA-5D30A980D9E5/656/EmployersDecisionto
Fire1005Bergeron.pdf>
Additional Information
Originally the District Court granted summary judgment to Nissan. Cantrell
appealed this to the United States District Court Sixth Circuit and the summary
was reversed and turned back over to the District Court for trial. I did not find
the results of the trial.