Reduction Of Workforce: Fastserve Inc.

MBA/560

Legal Issues in Reduction in Workforce: FastServe Inc

FastServe Inc (FastServe) is a $25 million 350-person strong company involved in the direct marketing of branded sports apparel that focuses exclusively on American's sport-crazy Generation Y segment. FastServe opened up two online marketing and distribution channels www.fasterve4boys.com and www.fastserve4girls.com for boys and girls respectively. 10% of the workforce was moved to manage the online distribution.

The Web sites has become so cumbersome to download that the potential buyers were not making enough transactions for such technological investments to be viable. FastServe has decided to move out of the online distribution business. The online division had to be downsized; concessions were made and of the five identified employees the decision of whom to retain or release would fall on the senior manager of human resources.

This paper will outline and discuss the thought process for the decision that was formed to provide the organization with three viable employees to release and fulfill the responsibility for maximum the benefit for FastServe Inc.

FastServe Senior Manager of the Human Resources Department has the responsibility of reporting to the vice president-human resources the outcome after the consideration of the legal implications in a way that it translates into the maximum benefit to FastServe. The final decision will be communicated to the employees within a week.

After reviewing the information (Table 1) and the knowledge of the laws that govern the workforce (Table two) the decision are: 1) Brian Carter - layoff, his skills are now redundant FastServe will provide outplacement support. 2) Sarah Boyd - inform Sarah that layoff is inevitable, and a severance package will be offered. With the openness of the situation it diminished the risk of litigation and the employee is happy. 3) Jenny Mills - though customer service is essential the business, Jenny skills are considered non-critical for the organization.

Historically, unless an employee (Jenny Mills) is under contract for a definite period of employment (i.e. one year), employers are able to discharge them without cause, at any time (Shedd et al, 2004). The employee's employment is agreement is governed by the employment-at-will doctrine. The miss use of the "employment-at-will" could cause concern if the employee was hired without a contract and or if the employee was given a personnel handbook (Shedd et al, 2004). Jenny Mills also pregnant is, protected by the laws against pregnancy discrimination. By informing the employee, (who is under contract) that her skills are considered "non-critical" and is a business decision to eliminate her position.

Terminating based age could have been an open door for Sara Boyd to sue FastServe under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) had they not been forthcoming with their plans and a solution for her. As a "matter of law" since reference to Sara age was never a factor nor was it mention during the communication with the employee concerning the layoff Sara would not have had any bases for a lawsuit. The decision was based on the organization business plan and it offered Sara an agreed upon severance package.

The employment discrimination laws see to prevent discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nation origin, physical disability, and age by employers. The extenuating regulatory circumstances that would affect the decision to terminate these people are coved n the Employee-at-will Doctrine.

Carl Haines was