Let’s say your employer is a bit lax in rule enforcement or has no written rules at all. Now take Employee A - always late, never attends meetings, etc. No punishment. Employee B is always on time and always attends meetings. Employee B decides that the preferential treatment of Employee A is more that he can take and decides to start emulating Employee A. Can the employer fire B for this? Could B take employer to court over said treatment?
I’m not an expert, but my understanding is that consistency of treatment amongst employees is a big part of discrimination lawsuits. If one employee can show unequal treatment, it forms a very good basis for complaint. That’s one of the main reasons why managers are constantly reminded to apply rules consistently to all employees.
I’m not a lawyer. However, this subject was covered in a labor law class I took. In an “employment at will” state, such as Indiana, an employer is free to discriminate however she wishes, with a few prominent exceptions. Your boss may fire or discipline you for being a Red Sox fan, but not because of race, gender, or, in some localities, sexual preference. If B’s boss simply doesn’t like B, she can fire (or not promote) B. If B can’t offer any proof that it happened because of B’s race or gender, the law offers no protection. If B works under a contract (such as a union contract) that prohibits discrimination, that’s a different picture.
Well, the obvious question is are there rules specifically written which pertain to Employee A’s shortcomings?
Perhaps Employee A has a verbal or tacit agreement with the employer.
I haven’t worked in many large office situations, but I find that its rare where all employees really should be treated the same. Granted I work in fliud environments, not large, union, or government ones. There are certainly slackers, but many times when I hear someone bitching about a “always late” coworker, that coworker is usually in the office later than the punctual one. In that person’s eyes the “early” coworker appears to be a clock watcher who cuts out early while he sits in the office afterhours. Other cases a worker has an agreement with the manager which allows him to leave and work from home in the evenings in exchange for flexibility around perhaps a parents schedule.
When it comes down to it, its not your job to judge the performance of your peers. Nor is it expected of the management to explain the nuances of their management choices, or lack thereof.
The short answer, is I don’t know. Yes there would probably be grounds for a trial in a case like the above, but unless that job description is very specific its not likely to be a victorious one.
The wise choice is to simply get over it, and worry about your own work, not others (especially if your boss seems to be a good one who notices this other person’s apparent shortcomings). The reasonable alternative is to discuss your feelings with your boss as opposed to simply slacking off yourself. Perhaps the boss has a more casual managing style than you thought, and would be quite OK with you also indulging in similarly flexible hours. Perhaps he’d enlighten you on a agreement the other worker and him have, and be willing to extend the same courtesy to you. The latter ploy must be done with tact, or you’ll risk being a “tattletale”. Such a label is likely to be more caustic with your boss than the lazy employee.
I’m assuming that the employee does not have a contract and is therefore an “at-will” employee.
In most U.S. jurisdictions, an employer can terminate an at-will employee for any reason or no reason at all. This allows employers to treat employees disparately with impunity. (And if you look at the American work-place, you will see that disparate treatment is rampant.)
Of course there are exceptions if disparate treatment is based on race, sex, disability, whistle-blowing, jury duty etc. etc.
(standard disclaimer about legal advice)
Not in a union shop.
I’m a shop steward for the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) and that’s one we see fairly frequently.
Not allowed to discipline one member for something and allow others to get away with whatever that something was. Gotta whap 'em all.
Of course, this can lead to stupid things like not being allowed to use the photocopier yourself (the supervisor has to do it) because one or two people managed to figure out how to spend most of the day there…
To amplify on what lucwarm said, if employee B happens to be black, female, disabled, older, etc., then the employer can get in trouble even if the disparate treatment was in fact completely innocent (innocent in this sense including firing someone just 'cuz you don’t like them). That’s why supervisors are always told to treat people equally – not because they have to, but because if the person they mistreat in a perfectly legal way is a member of a protected class then a lawsuit is possible. After all, it’s really tough to get inside the head of the supervisor.
–Cliffy