英语论文网

ever, many companies also consider factors such as whether the employee engages and respects diverse perspectives or has demonstrated leadership in advancing diversity within the corporation. A second level or multitiered management review of the process and the outcomes also can provide greater consistency in implementation and minimize potential bias, further reducing legal vulnerability. Management is also advised that performance appraisals used in a RIF that have not been validated are often the focus of future litigation. Best practices in employee performance management include ensuring that the employee appraisal process is validated to ensure equal employment opportunity and fairness, as well as providing training to managers on how to evaluate employees and provide continuous developmental feedback. If performance appraisals have not been validated, employers also may consider an adverse impact analysis of performance appraisals as discussed below. 4. Monitor Risk: Monitor and Assess Restructuring and Risk Mitigation Process. Employers also are advised to monitor the implementation of a restructuring plan as part of the risk mitigation process. Courts are significantly more likely to rule in favor of employers who institute a written policy, follow it to the letter, and make employment decisions based on its results. Further, the more consistently the established criteria for restructuring are applied, the less likely courts will intervene in the ensuing results. Employers also are advised to conduct an adverse impact analysis to assist in monitoring and minimizing risk. Adverse impact occurs when identical standards or procedures are applied to everyone, but result in a substantially different rate of selection (e.g., termination) to the disadvantage of members of a particular group. The EEOC and other enforcement agencies consider "a substantially different rate of selection" to mean a selection (termination) rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group that is more than (or for promotions, etc., less than) four-fifths or 80 percent of the selection rate for the group with the highest selection rate. The four-fifths guideline is a general rule of thumb. Greater analysis should be considered for very small or very large groups. For example, for large groups, employers should closely analyze employment decisions that are greater than two to three standard deviations from a random process, as some courts have identified this as a particular metric to justify a presumption of bias. Additionally, when reviewing the impact of a RIF on diverse work groups, employers are advised to consider multiple analyses, for example, regionwide statistics, particular branches or offices, and business units. Some courts also have looked at the demographic composition of the workforce before and after the restructuring. The lack or significant decrease of people over 40 years of age, women, or specific racial/ethnic groups, while not dispositive, when viewed with other factors can lead to an inference of pretext. Accordingly, the use of statistical and adverse impact analyses gives employers an understanding of how a restructuring effort may impact various work groups. 5. Manage Risk: Review All Communication About the Restructuring Process. Effectively managing communications during corporate restructuring accomplishes the dual objectives of reducing risk of potential litigation and managing overall employee stress and anxiety that can lead to lowe