With decades of experience helping organizations navigate change through technology, HR tech expert Ling-Yi Tsai specializes in using analytics and integrated systems to build fairer, more compliant workplaces. Today, she’s here to discuss the complex web of issues that arise when performance management, bias, and disability accommodation collide. We’ll explore how HR can identify and address potential discrimination when a new manager’s actions raise red flags, the right way to handle disability accommodations, the risks of misapplying internal policies, and how to protect both the company and its employees from claims of retaliation.
When several employees with positive histories are placed on PIPs shortly after a management change, what are the immediate red flags for HR? What specific steps should be taken to audit the manager’s process for fairness and consistency, especially regarding potential bias?
The alarm bells should be ringing loudly in HR. When you see a cluster of PIPs for historically strong performers right after a new manager takes over, as alleged in this case, it’s a huge red flag. It smells less like a genuine, sudden performance decline and more like a potential “house cleaning,” a fundamental mismatch in management style, or worse, a targeted action rooted in bias. The first step is to immediately pull the data and look at the manager’s track record. Are the documented reasons for the PIPs specific, measurable, and directly tied to job duties, or are they vague and subjective? You must compare the performance metrics of these employees, who had years of positive feedback, with their peers who were not put on a plan. The entire process feels off when you see strong careers suddenly evaporate in less than a month under new leadership.
An employer is accused of using an engineer’s documented speech disability to justify termination. What does a robust interactive process look like for such a disability, and how can a company document that it provided reasonable accommodations without focusing on limitations compared to the general population?
A robust interactive process is a genuine, good-faith conversation, not a one-way street. For an engineer with a documented speech disability, it’s not about judging him against the “general population”—that’s a critical legal misstep. The conversation must focus on identifying the specific barriers his disability creates for his essential job functions and collaboratively exploring solutions. This could mean anything from providing text-to-speech software, allowing for more written communication, or using specific collaboration tools that don’t rely solely on verbal meetings. Documentation is your shield: you need to log every meeting, every proposed accommodation, and the follow-up, noting what was accepted or rejected and why. The goal is to create a record of a collaborative effort to find a solution that enables the employee to succeed, not to build a case based on their limitations.
If a company’s guidelines suggest an “Initial Introductory Period” after a transfer, what are the legal and employee-relations risks of a manager placing team members on PIPs within 30 days? How can HR leadership ensure these internal policies are applied consistently across all departments?
Placing employees on a PIP within 30 days of a transfer, especially when internal guidelines suggest an “Initial Introductory Period,” is incredibly risky. Legally, it undermines the very purpose of that introductory period, which is to allow an employee to acclimate to a new role and manager. This quick trigger can look like powerful evidence of pretext if an employee later alleges the PIP was discriminatory. From an employee relations standpoint, it’s devastating to morale. It sends a message that you can be set up to fail. To ensure consistency, HR leadership must conduct periodic audits of how policies like this are applied across the company. Training for managers is critical, and HR systems should flag anomalies, like a manager who initiates PIPs far more quickly or frequently than their peers.
In a situation where only non-Caucasian employees under a specific manager are placed on PIPs, how would you advise an organization to investigate? What data should be analyzed, and what interventions are necessary to address potential systemic issues within that team?
When you have a pattern where only non-Caucasian employees under a specific manager are being placed on PIPs, you have to launch an immediate and thorough investigation. This isn’t just about this one manager; it’s about the health of the entire organization. You need to analyze demographic data for that team and compare it to others, looking at performance ratings, promotion rates, and disciplinary actions, slicing it by race and national origin. Talk to the employees involved, and perhaps others on the team, to understand the culture and the manager’s behaviors. If the investigation confirms a systemic issue, the interventions must be decisive. This could range from intensive one-on-one coaching and anti-bias training for the manager to removing them from their leadership role entirely to protect the team and the company.
When employees allege that raising concerns about discrimination led directly to adverse actions, how can a company differentiate between lawful performance management and illegal retaliation? What systems should be in place to shield employees who make good-faith complaints from punitive measures by their direct supervisors?
This is one of the thorniest issues in HR. The key is timing and documentation. If an employee who recently made a discrimination complaint is suddenly hit with a PIP for issues that were never documented before, it looks like retaliation. Lawful performance management relies on a consistent, well-documented history of performance discussions that predate the complaint. To shield employees, there must be a system where HR is immediately notified of any proposed disciplinary action against an employee who has an open complaint. HR or a neutral, second-level manager should review and approve the action to ensure it’s based on legitimate, pre-existing performance concerns. This creates a firewall between the employee’s protected activity and the manager’s potential punitive reaction, demonstrating the company takes its anti-retaliation policy seriously.
What is your forecast for litigation involving performance management and remote or hybrid work environments?
I predict a significant increase in litigation. The shift to remote and hybrid work has created new challenges for performance management, and with them, new legal risks. Managers may struggle with “proximity bias,” favoring employees they see in the office, which can lead to discrimination claims from remote workers who feel they are being unfairly evaluated. Furthermore, documenting performance is different when you don’t have daily, in-person observation; managers might rely on flawed metrics or subjective feelings, which are harder to defend in court. Companies must invest in training managers to evaluate performance based on results and output, not physical presence, and ensure their performance management systems are rigorously fair and consistent for all employees, regardless of where they work.